Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:

Someone wrote: "my intention was to talk about types of gnomes that don't exist." You didn't specify that originally -- you just said "gnomes," and as you have admitted, some types of gnomes (the ones made of plaster) do indeed exist. "This is unfortunate as this wastes a round in the debate but it could be that this is my fault; it could be that I was not clear enough about this." That is true -- it is your fault. "I will try and restate my example with "something Purushadasa doesn't believe exists", My opponent is free to substitute this with something my opponent doesn't believes exists." I already anticipated this, and if you want, we can go with "living gnomes," because I'm sure that you and I can agree that, unlike Home Depot gnomes (which are not living but do exist and are constructed from plaster and paint), living gnomes actually do not exist. "1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ). (Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). 2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ. (Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated). 3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ. (If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ). 4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about living gnomes" No they don't: Living gnomes do not actually exist, so no human being could possibly observe them. Observation of the ATQ would be required in order to form a subjective opinion about the ATQ because if the ATQ is not observed, then any subjective opinion formed would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). Therefore nobody actually has any subjective opinions about living gnomes -- what we have about them is objectively true statements and objectively false statements, but we can not possibly have any subjective opinions about living gnomes. 5. Therefore, subjective opinions about living gnomes exist. No they don't: (See above). 6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about living gnomes exist. No they don't. 7. Therefore, valid observation of living gnomes exists. No it doesn't. 8. Therefore, living gnomes exist objectively. No they don't. The argument I posited does not prove that any nonexistent thing (such as a living gnome) exists -- it only proves that existent things (such as non-living plaster gnomes) exist. Therefore it is a valid argument, and you have failed to provide any valid refutation to any of its premises, you have failed to provide any valid refutation to its logical structure or its logical coherence, and you have failed to provide any valid refutation to its conclusion. In fact, all of the ideas that you have posited and applied to my argument have provided support for my argument only, as the above text (written collaboratively by you and me) amply demonstrates. "My opponent states that I have created a "red herring logical fallacy" by proving the existence of garden-gnomes. It was however not my intention to prove the existence of garden-gnomes (see above) and I am sorry for any confusion this might have caused." I accept your apology: Can we stop talking about gnomes now, please, and get back to the actual subject of this debate? Red herrings are a waste of your time and mine, and the whole gnome thing is ultimately nothing but a red herring. It did actually damage your case, but I prefer to discuss the actual argument that I posited, not your silly red herrings -- even if they damage your case and support mine, as your silly gnome drivel ended up doing. "My opponent concludes that I have proved nothing about God," You haven't. " nor about moral ideals" You haven't: The only things you've proven anything about so far are: 1. non-living gnomes (you proved, using my argument, that they exist). 2. living gnomes (you proved, using my argument, that they do not exist), and, 3. My argument (you proved that my argument is valid, true, and sound) " My opponent is correct in this assertion." Of course I am. " I have not set out to prove anything about these things as I am merely trying to show the flaws in the proofs" You provided no evidence of any "flaws" in my proofs. To the contrary, you have proven conclusively that there are no flaws in my proof: Thank you for your assistance! (You are supposed to be arguing against my position, BTW -- not in its favor!) LOL =) I am unsure how my lack of proving anything about God or moral ideals loses me the debate as the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim" In actual debate, the burden of proof rests equally on both parties, not just one. It's clear that you are unfamiliar with actual debate, however, so I will forgive your ignorance of that fact, for now. ", and with good reason: because it is logically impossible to prove a negate [sic]" No it isn't. Also, if it were, then that would mean that you had chosen the less intelligent side of this debate -- the one that cannot possibly be proven. However, it is exceedingly easy to prove a negative. For example: Married bachelors do not exist (a negative position). All bachelors are unmarried. Therefore I just proved a negative (married bachelors do not exist). There are many more examples I could give, if necessary, but this one proves my point sufficiently. You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)