RESOLVED: Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist

Con states that God is the greatest, but the greatest is subjective. The philosopher Immanuel Kant in his work "Critique of Pure Reason" states that existence is not dependent on attributes (1). Furthermore, the Scriptures state that God is infinite not because of attributes, but because he is (2). This breaks down Con's argument. Con proposes two possibilities: 1) God can be conceived by the physical world and hence the universe is his attribute 2) God is an attribute of the physical realm. He goes on deducting his argument following the second proposition, but fails to address the first one. The universe is an attribute of God because he spoke it into his existence (Gen. 1). The Scriptures don't actually teach that morality is absolute. There are two types of morals (Rom. 2:12-15) those held by the Gentiles and those given to the Jews. That being said, there are many definitions of good and evil. Con cites no evidence to prove that humans derive morals from natural selection. Thus, it cannot be concluded that morals were not induced by God. The Problem of Evil argument has faulty logical approaches to God. No definitions were given as to what constitutes good and evil in God's eyes. In order for there to be a logical contradiction, you would need to present at least two opposing morals taken to be true at once. Since existence is not dependent on attributes, hypothetically, God can be evil and still exist. It's also faulty to assume that God would eliminate all evil from the start as no where in Scripture do we find this concept. The ability to commit evil and consequences following in Genesis 2-3 shows that God did not create the world morally perfect. It doesn't follow that God has to stop evil in this present state we are in. That being said, no contradiction in God's nature can be found as he can choose the time he wants evil to be eliminated. It's simply a misunderstanding of how God works that makes Con's arguments invalid concerning the Christian God. These arguments fail to disprove God's existence. My terms are as follows: Reality - The universe as it exists objectively objective - based on external truth through observation and logic, not dependent on personal opinions and feelings subjective - derived from personal opinions, experiences, thoughts, etc. Truth - conformity with fact or reason Evidence - anything observable that can be used to support a position Know - to perceive with the mind an understanding of Truth through observation, experience, logic, or evidence. Experience - personal encounter or observance with something external Divine experience - Personal encounter with the divine in some way, shape, or form Mind - the consciousness that perceives, thinks, feels, senses, etc. Illusion - something deceiving and leading to a false conclusion of reality Physical - of pertaining to that which is material Spiritual - pertaining to that which is spirit I will begin by saying that it can be since it can be agreed that absolute Truth cannot be attained by humans with limits, we will simply discuss the best approaches to the existence of God. Before we do that, i will explain why my argument is just as logically sound as concluding reality exists. 1. A divine experience proves God's existences 2. Therefore God exists Of course, you are already assuming that the experience is divine. However assuming certain things about reality doesn't imply that it's false, simply that the argument is derived from those assumptions. I take the position that we assume the existence of the universe. We can't prove it or otherwise, we would be using circular reasoning. Humans have conflicting concepts of what reality and illusions are. Simple examples would be: P1: Ghosts are a reality to Human x P2: Reality is known by only experience P3: Human x has seen a ghost P4: Human x infers ghosts exist C: Ghosts are a reality to Human x That being said, any attempt to change Human x would be futile as he already accepts that ghosts are real and anything contradicting his belief is an illusion. An opposing idea can be done with another human. P1: Ghosts are an illusion to human y P2: Reality is known purely by evidence P3: Human y has never seen evidence for ghosts P4: Human y infers ghosts probably don't exist C: Ghosts are an illusion to human y Using this logic, we can infer that human x and y's beliefs inductively apply to all humans. Can we know absolutely know who's right and who's wrong? Not really. I take the position that knowledge is subjective depending on the axioms you take on the world. I propose there are several methods in knowing God's existence: 1. Evidence - Evidence coming from various fields such as science, history, archaeology, etc. which can objectively know the physical aspect of reality rather than rely on pure experience and relies on inductive reasoning to gain it's knowledge of truth. ex: Doing a scientific study on the effects of weed on humans by testing select volunteers. The limits of this method is that it's not absolute. It's inductive, but does not always apply to all circumstances. Ex: P1: All humans are mortal P2: Human x is immortal C: Not all humans are mortal 2) Experience - we only have our senses and mind to gain knowledge of truth and reality ex: concluding humans exist by observing them The limits of this is that although it's on direct observation, it cannot be applied to gain objective and truthful knowledge of reality. ex: I cannot use my experience of an alien abductions to prove to you that aliens exist 3) Logic - You can deductively come to a logical conclusion from premises. Ex: If Larry is sick, then he will be absent. If Larry is absent, then he will miss his classwork. Therefore, if Larry is sick, then he will miss his classwork." The limits of this is that it's all subjective in the mind and requires objective experience on observations on reality ex: You get from observations that absence equals the missing of classwork because of how society is structured. These can all be used to find God's existence provided that each one is used correctly which i will explain in full detail next round. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. YHWH comes from the root Haya which means "to be" http://www.abarim-publications.com...