Atheism vs. Theism

Defending TAGMy opponent barely touched this argument, choosing only a couple objections. The Presuppositional Conflict of WorldviewsMy opponent contradicts himself. In a single paragraph he says:"First of all, yes, everyone assumes things. . . . What Atheists use when arguing is simply fact. That's it. Facts over guessing. "It cannot be true that everyone assumes things yet atheist never assume things when arguing. My opponent keeps making the same error time and again. He thinks facts always speak toward one single inescapable proposition. That is simply false. Facts are facts, but they must be interpreted. It's the interpretation that is subject to our assumptions. Athiests do use facts. So do theists, as I have demonstrated. Yet, those facts are interpreted two different ways between us. That is because our presuppositions inevitably inform how we interpret those facts. It boils down, once again, to my opponent being unable to accept that he is just as bias in his epistemology as I am. He has failed to refute this crucial premise of TAG. Laws of LogicMy opponent engages in some serious equivocation on this point. He provides five different dictionary definitions for logic, none of which say "logic is what is used to describe a fact. " He then employs this arbitrary redefinition to make his case. He makes logic and facts one and the same without warrant. There are facts about logic, to be sure, and we use logic to study facts. But the existence of facts do not account for logic. I had clearly focused my premise on the laws of logic. Abstract, universal laws. The best my opponent can do is claim that "the basic fundamental laws of reality in the universe say that logic does not change, for facts to do not change. " This is question begging. TAG issues a direct challenge to atheists: account for the things necessary for knowledge. One of those things is logic. If one cannot account for logic within atheism, then how can that person reasonably know atheism is true? Uniformity of NatureNo rebuttal from Pro. I rest my case. Moral AbsolutesNo rebuttal from Pro. I rest my case. Freedom in Thinking and ThoughtNo rebuttal from Pro. I rest my case. Rebuttals to Pro's Opening ArgumentsMy opponent's defense is unfortunately riddles with misrepresentations of my arguments and bare assertions. Evolution disproves CreationOnce again my opponent claims that evolution is proven scientific fact. I'm happy for him; it is good to have conviction. However, this is a debate, and simply repeating the phrase ad nauseam is not proof. He says we can prove human ancestry. That is false. The fact is that ancient animals share similarities with human DNA. This is not proof of anything other than similarity. My opponent never addressed the glaring error on his part.1. Now behavior is passed down? How? What does it mean?2. Human DNA is solid proof how? What does it prove beyond an overlap of common gene sequences?3. He repeats that genetics is proof of evolution. How?4. More DNA supporting the fact that there are similarities found in organisms. So?5. He even uses the word similar here. How do we leap from similar to undeniable proof?6. Natural selection is proven. I never argued otherwise, but I also pointed out that natural selection is only proof of natural selection. How does one jump from natural selection to full blown evolution? I formed the above objections as questions to make a point. My opponent is not really making a case for evolution here. He just says it's all proof and it's been proven time and time again. The problem is that there is no unanimity in even secular biology as to the veracity of evolution. His whole argument is bare assertion. To add insult to injury, he asks us to read another website for proof. For shame. I am supposed to be debating him, not talkorigins. Theism has liedI am flabbergasted at my opponent's response here. Please compare my sentence…"My opponent engages in pure conjecture about ancient knowledge. He offers no evidence to back up this claim. It is just another ad hominem prejudice he feels compelled to share. "…with his:"Ah, good. My opponent admits that most of Theism is 'pure conjecture about ancient knowledge'. "I clearly accused him of pure conjecture about ancient knowledge. There is really nothing for me to refute here. All he did was severely twist my words. Theism is corruptMy opponent just further affirms my critique. He flat out says he's just stating his opinion. His opinion is not adequate for proof. Facts and data always disprove faith and philosophyI can hardly make sense of my opponent's rebuttal here. He says I am wrong about facts having multiple possible interpretations by simply asserting (for the umpteenth time) that Evolution is proven fact. He doesn't actually make an argument here. More ipse dixit. God is impossibleTAG does not argue that God is outside of time, and I am amazed at such a wildly off base interpretation. In fact, I never offered proof of God being timeless: he is timeless by definition. A definition my opponent seemed to accept. Since he is defined as timeless, I simply pointed out that it was fallacious to say God couldn't exist before the beginning of the universe. As for the quip about who created God, all I can say is that it doesn't matter. The debate is atheism vs. theism. Whether or not God was created has no bearing on this discussion. All that matters is his existence. I understand the point my opponent is making. If God has no creator, why can't the universe have no creator? One answer is that the universe is temporal and God is not. The more important reason is demonstrated in TAG: without God, we can't even account for the logic, science, and freedom of thought we use to even make such an assessment. My opponent also agrees with me that neither of us can prove what is beyond the big bang, although he insists on smearing me with this idea that I am putting God in the gaps. I fail to see where I said at any point, "I don't know, God did it. " I merely pointed out that God was timeless by definition so there is no problem with him creating time and space. Never did I say that God must have created universe because I'm just too ignorant to figure out otherwise. ConclusionMy opponent has made a very weak case for atheism, one that has very little argumentative support behind it. Almost everything he stated was asserted without reasoning. In one case he pointed to a link for reading. Perhaps he is too new to this site to know that it is considered bad form to ask me to debate links, for it both allows him to circumvent the character limit and removes himself from the actual hard work of making his case. Whatever the reason, atheism has very little going for it based on his debating. TAG stands unrefuted. Even if the readers do not personally find it a compelling argument, I do hope they recognize that my success in defending theism fare exceeds my opponent's success in defending atheism. On balance, I find it all too reasonable to vote Con. Please vote responsibly. :)