Resolved: God exists

Well, here we are at the end of what has been a fascinating round. I thank Con for his participation. However, I still stand Resolved: God exists. I still hold that the Christian Worldview is the only worldview that can account for the debate we have had so far. I still hold that the Christian Worldview is the only worldview that can provide objective standards of logic, morality, and truth. First, I'd like to clarify that the "main argument" my opponent said was my main argument was only one of the main arguments. Both of my 2 points were my main points, and while they did flow together I did not intend one to serve the purpose of supporting the other. Second, I'd like to respond to the source of necessary preconditions for intelligibility that my opponent provided. "The objection being: why should anyone else adhere to a relative standard? And the answer is simple: because we agree to and that is the only way to obtain utility from it. " " Con, R3 In essence, Con claimed that convention (the majority) is the source of logic, morality, and truth. He did not deal with my rebuttal of that source that I presented in R3, so I will restate it and elaborate on it. First, appealing to the majority as the source of necessary preconditions for intelligibility breaks one of the laws of logic it is claimed they provide. It commits the fallacy of the "appeal to the masses," or "ad populum. " This means that his source is self-contradictory. Second, how do we know what the majority says? In other words, what majority? For a while, the majority in America thought slavery was fine. So was slavery morally acceptable just because at least 51% thought it was? To use the classic example, in Nazi Germany the majority believed the Jews were an inferior race. Were they right? My opponent might respond, no, because the majority in the world thought they were wrong? Ok, so then what obligated Germany to adhere to that? According to my opponent, because they agreed to do so. Where? And even so, are we really ready to claim that the only reason Hitler and the slave-owners were wrong was because they disagreed with the rest of us? That they broke convention? Really, that's the best the atheist worldview has? So we've seen how a source of the majority fails in regards to logic and morality, but what about truth? Well, even though I think I've sufficiently proven the source invalid, let's assume for a moment that it is valid. If that is the case, if the majority determines truth, then my opponent's worldview is wrong, since studies show that only about 5% of people are atheists. Therefore, the majority agrees with me. Now, I won't for a second say that because the majority agrees with me therefore God exists because that is fallacious, and the majority is not a valid standard of truth. But, even if it were, it would defeat my opponent's worldview. Thus, if in his next post my opponent doesn't reject this standard, then please consider this debate round won by Pro because of the standard of truth that Con set up. Now, let's move on to an accusation my opponent made against my case, claiming that I committed the "inverse fallacy. " "My opponent's clarification can be summarized thusly: If God exists, then objective standards for logic, morality, and truth exist. Therefore, if God doesn't exist, then objective standards for logic, morality, and truth don't exist. This is fallacious, committing an "inverse error"[1]. Pro assumes that only god can provide for such objective standards citing only his ignorance of other possibilities which is also fallacious[2]. " " Con, R3 I take fault with the summary my opponent used. I would restate it thusly: God is the only way for necessary preconditions for intelligibility exist. Therefore, if God doesn't exist then it is impossible for necessary preconditions for intelligibility to exist. This is an argument from the impossibility to the contrary. Furthermore, though, by what standard of logic does my opponent critique me? We've already seen how his current standards are invalid, so then what standard does he have? The first premise is supported by the fact that God is the only thing that is by definition transcendent, and he is the starting point for logic, morality, and truth. They flow from his character. My opponent makes several other arguments. He claims that appealing to objective standards doesn't work because not everyone agrees on objective standards. Again, here he appeals to his standard of the majority's agreement. I've already shown this to be false, but, this also places people's agreement as the standard for what is objective, and my opponent once again shows his misunderstanding of epistemology. If I am right, then I am right regardless of whether or not people agree with me. If Islam is right, then islam is right regardless of who agrees with them or not. People's agreement are not the source of all knowledge (which is essentially what my opponent suggested in presenting the majority as the answer to my questions). Then, my opponent states that he is not obligated to present counter-examples. Now, even though he did provide a counter-example (the majority) I have to point out two things. 1) In formal logic, if one does not present an alternative option then a statement has simply been proven "non-true. " This is not, as some may think, false. This is instead anything but true. So, even though it is an absurd example, the statement might be, say, a chicken. But it hasn't been proven false. Thus, under this point my opponent keeps bringing up, every debate, including this one, must end in a tie. 2) If I am questioning his ability to say anything at all without using my worldview, he must show how his worldview can account for necessary preconditions for intelligibility, which he has not done in a valid manner yet. My opponent also presents the argument that necessary preconditions for intelligibility aren't necessary to make sense out of the world. Now, while the opposite is proven analytically true (true by definition) I will respond to the analogy my opponent presents. He talks about how language is subjective but yet we make sense of everything. Now, it is important to note that language is not a necessary precondition for intelligibility, but also that language is a subjective medium used to communicate an objective idea. To illustrate, imagine if 50 years in the future we decided to start calling mountains "ice cream. " Now, while the name for mountain would have changed, we would still be communicating the same idea that we would be if we said "mountain. " Furthermore, if language is just our agreed upon definitions of things (as my opponent rightly asserts) the dictionaries, as a collection of those agreements, are a perfectly valid way to define a philosophy contrary to what my opponent said. So, in conclusion, I believe my opponent has failed to provide a solid epistemological ground upon which he can critique my worldview, without appealing to my worldview. He has failed to show how his worldview can account for any sort of logic, morality, or truth. Whereas I have shown how my worldview can and does account for those things. My opponent is doing the equivalent of trying to disprove oxygen, while all the time breathing it in order to be able to argue against it's existence.