The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1G

I submitted my second round right before bed, and when I woke up this morning I got an email saying it's my turn to debate. TheSkeptic is either quite the night owl or quite the early bird. Either way, his quick reply is much appreciated. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes ==================== My opponent mistakes transcendental argumentation (this is why we call it TAG) for the fallacy of division. The fallacy of division starts from an object O identifying a property P, then erroneously concludes that all the parts of O have P. TAG starts with (for example) logical absolutes, O, identifying their properties, P, and determine the necessary preconditions for O to have P. TAG argues in the opposite direction. To clarify this, I'll expound my case: Logical absolutes must not change, or they are not absolute. Therefore, it is logically necessary that they exist outside human brains, physical energy, matter, and so forth, because these things are changing. Indeed, the universe is in constant flux. So, in order for immutability to be preserved, it is logically necessary for logical absolutes to be metaphysical. Logical absolutes are abstract. Therefore, it is logically necessary that they are products of thought. Human thought cannot be the source else logic is no longer immutable (see above). The only thought that can preserve both the abstract and immutable nature of logic is a mind that is transcendent and immutable. Finally, logical absolutes are necessarily true. Thus, any transcendent, immutable mind must also be rational. The conclusion, based on necessary preconditions, is that a transcendent, immutable, rational mind exists. To confirm the conclusion, remove any one of these prerequisites, and logical absolutes will reduce to absurdity, as I argued in round one. Thus, TAG accounts for logical absolutes, the very thing my opponent simply takes for granted. There is no double standard here. My opponent asserts that he can invalidate any argument for God's existence, but if he wants all humans including myself to adhere to strict logical standards, then he should be able to account for those standards. Calling logic an axiom only begs the question. If he wants to use logic to deny God's existence, then logical absolutes must be explainable apart from God's existence. Otherwise, he is relying on the very thing he attempts to refute. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes - Theism's Inability to Account for God's Existence/Attributes ==================== My opponent puts a lot of energy into this straw man. He proposes, since I cannot allegedly account for God, I cannot win the debate. He contends that I cannot account for WHY God exists. TAG does explain WHY. God exists BECAUSE he is the necessary precondition for logical absolutes, uniformity in nature, and moral absolutes. This is a veiled attempt to refute TAG by assuming it's already false. This is major question begging. The same problem applies to my opponent's contention that I cannot account for why God has some attributes and not others. I hate to be redundant, but again, TAG argues for a particular kind of God. The many traits of God are logically necessary. He must be merciful, just, righteous, and holy to account for moral absolutes. He must be self-sufficient, perfect, unchanging, and omniscient to account for logical absolutes. And so on and so forth. ==================== TAG - Uniformity of Nature ==================== Uniformity in nature must be true in order for science to yield objective knowledge. My opponent simply defers his rebuttal in this area to the same rebuttal he uses for logical absolutes. So be it, but if my defense of TAG holds for logical absolutes, then it holds for the uniformity of nature as well. Suffice to say, merely assuming nature is uniform and logic is absolute while also asserting that "logic is descriptive of reality" has the markings of circular reasoning all over it. (Quote is from TheSkeptic's second round) ==================== TAG - Existence of Objective Morality ==================== Combining moral nihilism with fictionalism is like the man that claims he doesn't have a car but uses it when pretending to drive to work. If the car really doesn't exist, then pretending it exists has no effect. If his car does exist, then his claims are self-refuting. My opponent claims that morality does not exist but pretends to be moral in order to "avoid the harmful effects of a lawless land." My opponent will refute this position as soon as he expects anyone else to pretend alongside him. If I shoot him in the leg and take his wallet, to be consistent, he'll just have to accept that I pretended differently. If he seeks justice, then he no longer pretends. Moral nihilism simply can't be rationally lived out in real life. My opponent's moral theories only serve to strengthen my case. Moral objectivity is the only rational choice, as anything else reduces to absurdity. Since moral absolutes exist, they must be transcendent and abstract, for the same reasons as logical absolutes. Therefore, there must be a transcendent, immutable, perfectly good mind behind them. God, as defined in this debate, fulfills these prerequisites. ==================== Failure of TAG - Non-Unique Proof ==================== My opponent cleverly led me into a myopic discussion here, focusing squarely on the prerequisites of logic. The reason TAG does indeed argue for one kind of God is that TAG also argues from uniformity in nature and moral objectivity. A god that accounts for logic cannot also be evil since such a god cannot also account for moral absolutes. A god that is not omnipotent would be subject to logical absolutes and therefore could not account for them. A god that is not omniscient cannot be perfectly just and fails to account for moral absolutes. Alter the definition of God in this debate and He can no longer meet the necessary preconditions identified in TAG. Thus, TAG does indeed argue for a very unique God. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's rebuttals are wanting. His attempt to use the fallacy of division against the argument for logical absolutes turned out to be fallacious itself. He assumes logical absolutes and uniformity of nature, and uses those assumptions to disprove God, even though he cannot account for these things without God. His argument for moral nihilism only exaggerates the philosophical problems with atheism, thus strengthening theism. Finally, I've shown TAG to argue for a unique God, thereby refuting his non-unique proof. Thus far, TAG remains firmly valid, and the resolution remains solidly affirmed. Boy, I'm glad I didn't pick more than one argument.