Does God exist ? (part 2)

Debate Parameters To answer Con's question directly, yes, you have to prove God's non-existence per your own debate parameters. You said in round one, "I as the CON will present arguments that Gods [sic] non existence is more likely that its existence. " I am not shifting the burden. Extended Rebuttal My simple rebuttal is that your only argument does not prove anything. It simply states that more things do not exist than do exist. So be it, but I am arguing that God does exists, so now what? Granted, if I did not have supporting evidence, this would be a valid argument. But I am providing two arguments and you are providing no other arguments. You made this debate a two-way street, so where is your evidence? What is a universe? Universe has two meanings: our cosmos or "a realm in which something exists or takes place. " [1] Obviously, when I talk about other temporal or eternal universes, I am employing the latter definition. Defense of KCA Countering that the first cause must be personal Con's rebuttal can be summarized in his question, "Why can't an eternal cause produce a finite amount of things? " Simply put, eternity and finity are logically incompatible when no will or mind is present. Any impersonal universe with no aspect of intelligence with a finite amount of events is, by definition, a temporal universe. Let's try to imagine an eternal mechanical universe with no intelligence that creates only our universe at one point. Why would a universe that does nothing forever and forever suddenly do one thing? The only logical answer is that something changed. And when something changes, we have an effect. An effect always has a cause. Thus, the universe is not eternal after all because it now has its own chain of causes and effects. Now, compare this with a personal eternal creator. When he creates, he causes an effect. But did something change? Not at all, for his will is the cause, and his will didn't change in the process. There is no false dilemma. Logic necessitates only two options, as I have shown Con's third option to be no different than any other mechanical eternity one might conceive. The argument that God is not eternal Con's rebuttal suffers from the fallacy of redefinition. He is using my arguments, which refer to separate existences, i. e. eternal versus temporal, to mean all existences combined. I've clearly argued that God's existence operates independently of our universe, and I've argued repeatedly that he can cause effects without necessitating change over time. The argument that God does not create anything Con's second premise misrepresents my argument. It should read, "Things that do not change and have no will do not produce anything. " With the second premise corrected, Con's conclusion becomes invalid. Causation/time and timeless causes Not all causes and effects are contained within the same universe. As we've already discussed, it's possible for an effect manifested in one universe to be the result of a cause from another universe. Con's fallacy is in his use of the phrase "a series of cause/effect. " In premise one, he uses the phrase as it applies to a single temporal entity. In premise two, he uses it to mean all causes and effects in all existences combined: i. e. , the fallacy of redefinition. Countering the bible is historically accurate I'm just going to drop this point because it's getting nowhere. I've already successfully argued for a personal creator and I don't want Con to make this point a red-herring. Thus, I'll allow KCA to be an evidential argument for a creator in general and I'll allow TAG to be an argument for Christianity specifically. Defense of TAG My opponent does not understand the argument, and so dismisses it. I'll focus on logic and see if that helps clarify the argument. My opponent and I both presuppose that logic is a valid way to reach objective truth. What makes it valid? First, it's universal. If it were not, then he and I could have different rules of logic and validly reach opposing conclusions. As a result, truth would be arbitrary. Second, it is unchanging. The laws of logic will be the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. With the nature of logic established, we move to the transcendental part of the argument. Transcendental arguments start at from the particulars and logically conclude the universals by determining the necessary preconditions. The first necessary precondition for logic to be universal and unchanging is that it must be abstract. It can't be matter and energy because they are in constant flux. Furthermore, it must involve some kind of intelligence. If there are no minds, then there is no logic as it is a function of minds. However, we can't merely say that it's a convention, because that allows room for logic to change. If it's a convention, how do we prove that the convention is correct? With logic? That would be question begging. However, if logic is absolute and abstract--that is, it exists independently of ourselves within a single unchanging mind that is universal to all other minds--then the conditions necessary to make logic reliable are in place. So, now we've transcendentally argued that logic must be abstract and absolute, we finish the argument using process of elimination. In this debate, I'll simply choose two competing worldviews: the Christian worldview (God exists) and the naturalist worldview (there is only matter and motion). Of these two worldviews, I'll argue that only the Christian worldview can account for the necessary preconditions of logic. Now, there are many other worldviews, but I don't have infinite character space, so I'll start with these two and Con can offer any other worldview he thinks cannot be eliminated. Before I eliminate worldviews, I must list the criteria by which the worldviews are to be rejected as rationally acceptable. 1. It must not be arbitrary. 2. It must be internally consistent. 3. It must rationally account for human experience. Naturalism can be eliminated because it cannot simultaneously account for logic and remain internally consistent. If God does not exist and only matter and motion exist, then to be internally consistent, the naturalist must confess that logic is conventional and, therefore, arbitrary. It is not valid to prove the validity of logic as a convention using logic as a convention. On the other hand, the Christian God meets all necessary preconditions for abstract absolute logic while simultaneously remaining internally consistent. God is immaterial and has an immutable mind. Logic, therefore, can exist independently from us and we can appeal to it as being reliable for finding objective truth. By process of elimination, the Christian Worldview is correct. The Christian Worldview presupposes the existence of God. Therefore, God exists. I invite my opponent to either refute my elimination process or to proffer other worldviews he thinks can meet all three criteria. Conclusion My opponent has only one more round to offer new arguments. So far, he has only offered one weak argument in favor of his position, which was refuted the moment I offered support for God's existence. He has focused instead on trying to refute KCA but has been struggling to do so. I have dropped premises 5 and 6 because, at this point, I do not think the time spent on them is worth it when Con has done so little to refute the rest of my case. He has yet to scratch the surface of TAG. As it stands, I feel accurate in stating that I am meeting my burden of proof to a far greater degree than my opponent. Sources 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...