Resolved: God is a logically necessary being.

Thanks again to pro for an interesting argument and for clarifying the definition of presuppositional apologetics. I am perfectly content to use your definition, as it obviously this does not affect the meaning of the resolution itself. Now, let's take a look at pro's claims. Firstly, pro states that "without God, the universe is left to randomness and chance, or strict determinism." However, this does not necessarily imply the inverse, namely that with God, the universe isn't left to randomness and chance or strict determinism. In order for my opponent's statement to have any value, however, the inverse must be true. Otherwise, all of his arguments would apply to a theistic universe. My question to my opponent is this: what is the alternative to randomness and chance or determinism, and why is it not possible for this alternative to be true without God? Without an answer to this question, there is no way to adequately deal with this statement in a meaningful way. One sentence down, a lot to go. You claim that in a naturalistic worldview, humans are nothing more than time and chance acting on chemicals. This is false. When six protons, neutrons, and electrons come together, they are not "merely time and chance acting on fundamental particles;" they are an atom of carbon, completely distinct from its constituent parts and with different properties. Secondly, you claim that thoughts are "nothing more than a chemical reaction." This is also not the case. Just because thoughts are the result of a chemical reaction doesn't mean the thought itself is a chemical reaction. In the same way, although a letter appearing on a computer screen may be the result of a string of ones and zeros, it is distinct from those ones and zeros. This is a subtle distinction, and often an unnecessary one, but treating a thought as ontologically equivalent to a chemical reaction is fallacious. Saying that zeros and ones can't produce a word is all well and good, but the minute we start talking about letters, that reasoning is invalid. In the same way, saying that chemical reactions are neither true nor false is all well and good, but a thought is distinct from these reactions and therefore can be true or false. Indeed, the ability to distinguish true from false is a valuable survival skill, so evolution confirms our ability to reason. It simply doesn't make sense to ignore the human ability to think rationally simply because it is a result of natural processes. Next, we'll take a look at determinism. You claim that because an outcome can be predicted with one hundred percent accuracy given enough information, rational thought is impossible. This is a non sequitur. Just because there is only one way an thought may come into existence doesn't mean the thought carries no intrinsic truth value. Let's look at an example. When I enter in 1+1 into my TI calculator, it will always return two. This is a deterministic process. However, the statement 1+1=2 is a true one. Therefore, a mind can produce/discover truths in a deterministic universe. Now, let's look at the analytic synthetic distinction. This distinction states that there are two kinds of claims: a priori and a posteriori claims. A priori claims have a truth value unconnected to the real world, which follows from their definitions. For example, 1+1=2 is an a priori truth because it follows from the definitions of one, the plus operator, the equals sign, and two. However, synthetic, or a posteriori, claims are based on observable truths or the real world. For example, the Theory of General Relativity is an a posteriori truth, because it is deduced from observation and doesn't follow from its definition. The existence of God is a synthetic claim which involves a being that actually exists. Therefore, God's existence doesn't follow from its definition. The statement that there are analytic and synthetic claims is an analytic one as it follows from the definitions of analytic and synthetic, so pro's point is null and void. My opponent is very insightful in recognizing that existence cannot be a property in the traditional sense of the word. The only reason why I called it a "property" is that it is commonly referred to as such in normal discourse. As the great philosopher Immanuel Kant once said, "Existence is not a predicate." [1] This is the deeper reason why the Ontological argument fails. Thanks again for watching this debate to the online audience, and to pro for an interesting dialogue. I look forward to next round Sources 1- https://www.trinity.edu...