Resolved: Theism is logical

This round will be dedicated to counter-rebuttals. =First Counter-Rebuttal= "Logical Theists" In order to rebut my logical theists statement, my opponent essentially stated that just because famous logical people were theists, that does not make theism logical. Thus, my argument used the fallicious reasoning, argumentum ad populum. While my argument is an argumentum ad populum, it is a non-fallicious example of ad populum. "B. If an elite group of people are in a position to know of what they speak, their authority is relevant and should not automatically be discounted. E.g., Is is a legitimate appeal and no fallacy to argue that most physicians believe that a high fat diet is unhealthy, and therefore a high fat diet is unhealthy." -(http://philosophy.lander.edu...) I was stating that these logical people were an elite group of people who had authority of what they were discussing, since they are logical people. Because they are an logical , and they are theists, it can be concluded that theism is logical. (Thus my argumentum ad populum is valid.) "Argument 1: The Kalam Theological Argument" In order to rebut the Kalam Theological Argument, my opponent stated: So this begs the question, Where did the universe come from? Yet why did it have to come from anything? But everything should come from something. Then where did the universe come from? Universe was made by god(s). But then where did god come from? because god is eternal and doesnt come from anything. Then perhaps everything doesn't need to come from something, therefore perhaps the universe doesn't need something to exist. The most widely accepted scientific theory for the orgin of the universe is the Big Bang Theory [1] [2] Under the Big Bang Theory, the universe began 13.8 billion years ago from one single point in space and has been expanding ever since. This event raises the question, how did the universe come to be? There are two likely hypothesis: The universe created the universe, or something outside the universe created the universe. The question is: Is it more logically plausible that the universe created the universe, or something outside the universe created the universe? I conclude that it is more likely the universe, a physical entinity, was created by "God", a non physical entinity, rather than the universe creating itself. Since the belief that a god, or a non physical entinity, created the universe is a logical explanation for the orgin of the universe, and the belief in god(s) is theism, then it can be concluded that theism is logical. "Argument 2: The Ontological Argument" In order to rebut the Ontological Argument, my opponent stated: "For imagination is the source of possibilities, not a source of logic. We can determine possibilities to be capable of being produced in reality by rational explanation by logically observing and science. The possibility of the earth being round, it became rational when one observes the horizon, the moon, and was confirmed by the circular navigation of earth and reconfirmed by going into space. Imagination does not need to be logical for it is possibility, but possibility does not need to be logical reason why you could imagine a pink unicorn building the universe, but rationality does not comply for there is no evidence through logical observation and science to support it. But god doesn't have steps which are based in reality and he can only be expressed in imaginary space making him a possibility but not something that can happen in reality bound by logic and science, therefor, again, making him illogical." Counter Rebuttal: 1) I imagine God 2) If I imagine God, God is possible 3) God is rational if God is a plausible explanation for the orgin of the universe. 4) God is a plausible explanation for the orgin of the universe. (Explained in Argument 1: Kalam Theoligcal Argument) 5) Thus God is rational. 6) The belief in God is theism. 7) Thus theism is logical. There is also a philsophy of solipism, which states that nothing can be certain except for one's own mind, under solipism, it can be concluded that one's own mind is God. 1) (Assuming solipism is true) Nothing can be certain to exist except my own mind. 2) Since nothing can be certain to exist except my own mind, my own mind is the supreme being. 3) God is defined as the supreme being. 4)Therefore my mind is God. Or 1) (Assuming solipism is true) Nothing can be certain to exist except my own mind. 2) Since nothing can be certain to exist except my own mind, everything probably exists in my own mind 3) God is defined as the creator deity. 4)My mind has created everything 5)Therefore my mind is God. "Argument 3: The Teleological Argument In order to rebut the Teoleogical Argument, my opponent states: "Trying to compare the universe to a manmade object is a false analogy, the vast system we know as the universe operates on a completely different scale than something mankind can make, and if a designer is needed to make complex object, then what could be more complex than making said designer? Not to mention the hostility that the universe expresses to life outside the earth making the "watch" as you put it without any fine tuning to life alone. Also due to its vastness one could say life may also exist out in the deep reaches on this universe, saying were the only ones is kind of arrogant and selfish. Also if a multiverse exists then this concept falls on its face, for again shows the lack of fine tuning in the universe." Counter rebuttal: The analogy is not a false analogy, a human and a watch are both complex, but they are simple compared to God and the universe. A complex design requires a complex designer, and this belief is reasonable because it is unlikely that the universe created itself. The probablity of a life permitting universe is also very slim, so it could logically be concluded that a creator fined tuned the universe to permit life. While this does not prove the existance of God, it makes the belief in God reasonable, and since the belief in God is theism, it makes theism logical. "Argument 4: Argument from morality." "Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no personal or genetic benefit. The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists. There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong. The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts. Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world." [4] (Thus) There are objective moral facts. God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts. Therefore, (probably) God exists. [5] The morality argument is a logical argument for the existance of God. If there is logical argument for the existance of God, then the belief existance of God is logical Theism is the belief that God is exists. Therefore Theism is logical. Sources: [1]http://science.nasa.gov... [2]http://www.britannica.com... [3]http://www.iep.utm.edu... [4] http://www.shenvi.org...... [5] [5] http://plato.stanford.edu...... (My opponent gives rebuttals of immoral actions by using examples of the Abrahamic God, which is not the only God, and thus does not rebut the objective morality argument.) Conclusion: Theism is logical for God is logical. A believe I have adequately upheld the BoP that there is rational basis for the belief in God (theism) from the above argument. Thus theism is logical.