Logic Analysis: These arguments prove the existence of God.

__________________ CONCERN: Before I return to refuting my opponent's case, I need to address a point of concern. "Thus far my opponent has provided nothing for me to challenge. " My case is an entirely negative one. My opponent is trying to produce arguments that can establish God's existence. My burden is to refute my opponent's arguments. I have, however, produced somewhat for my opponent to challenge; namely my refutations of his arguments. I suggest he do so, as he has not yet addressed any of them. ________________ REFUTATIONS: === C1 === a): General revelation: I. Nature: "God created the earth and all that is therein. If He didn't exist, He couldn't have created it. " Correct. If He doesn't exist, He cannot have created anything. However, it does not follow: the Earth exists, therefore God must have created it. There are alternate explanations for the Earth's existence; God's existence is not self evident from the existence of the Earth. "I know of no other possible explanation for the creator of the earth. " I'm sorry. II. History: "The small remnant of the Children of Israel (aka Jacob) could not have survived to this day and become the nation of Israel without divine intervention. The only entity capable of this type of divine intervention is God. Since Israel does exist, and only God could have sustained them, God does exist. " If my opponent can prove that God has intervened in history, then God's existence will no longer be in question. However, this particular argument does not suffice. Let's examine this in detail: "The small remnant of the Children of Israel (aka Jacob) could not have survived to this day and become the nation of Israel without divine intervention. " Many small remnant peoples survive to this day, despite persecution, conquest, and attempted annihilation. Two examples: 1) the Roma, also known as the Gypsies. Nomadic people of Europe, of suspected Indian extraction. Subject to persecution, race-killings, and attempts at genocide for at least the last millennium. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) The Cymry, labeled Welsh (strangers) by the Anglo-Saxons. Subject to racial perseution until the 1700's; conquered by Edward I of England in 1282; has been subject ever since. Recently has been trying to regain its independence. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Neither of these are mentioned in the Bible as having been specially preserved; yet they exist. Survival does not seem to be limited to those sustained by divine intervention; it is entirely possible that Israel survived to the present without any help from any God. This premise is incorrect. "The only entity capable of this type of divine intervention is God. " By definition, any divine intervention requires a God. "Since Israel does exist, and only God could have sustained them, God does exist. " But my opponent has not established that Israel did not survive on their own; nor that God has intervened to prevent their demise. I refuse to assume either of these for this debate; nor will I fill in the blanks in his arguments. Until such time as he gives evidence for his claims, this argument is invalid. ----------------------- b): "Special revelation is relevant because if God did not exist, how could He have revealed Himself to people? These had to be actual events as they were recorded in history. " My opponent has not given any evidence that God has revealed Himself to anyone; nor has he given instances of God revealing Himself in history. The only instances he cited are to be found only in the Bible; and as I have already shown, it is circular reasoning to argue God's existence from what the Bible says, since the validity of the Bible depends on God's existence. In the absence of evidence, this point remains in the realm of opinion. === C2 === "I thank my opponent for providing these links. " My opponent is welcome; I hope he enjoys reading them. "As I believe that my opponent is already a believer and familiar with these arguments, I included them to support my case for those who are less familiar. " I am a believer. I am also his opponent. I am not going to fill in the holes in his arguments; it is up to him to make a coherent case. As it turns out, I am familiar with these arguments; familiar enough to know that they are all invalid, or probably so. A. Cosmological (argument from cause) assumes without proof that there must be a first cause; when an infinite causality loop or a eternal universe are also possible. B. Teleological (argument from design) only indicates a higher probability for God creating rather than unguided evolution; and then only if its assumptions are correct. C. Ontological (argument from definition) attempts to define God into existence; possibly the most ambitious semantics argument in history. The problem with this is that anything, even non-extant things, can be defined. "They actually require little development. " If my opponent chooses not to present his arguments, he ought not be surprised if they are ignored. If he does not state, explain, and apply these arguments, why should I spend time refuting what he does not seriously posit? ". .. in combination, they point to only one possible conclusion which is God. " Only if they are all correct, which he has not shown. === C3: === "I expected the Bible to be rejected as a legitimate source. " Then why did he not defend its verity in his first round? And why has he still not defended it? It is vital to all the arguments that my opponent has yet raised that we be able to trust the Bible; yet he has not defended it, only cited it. A biased, unverified source can hardly be considered legitimate, and he has given us no reason to consider the Bible in any other light. "There are many records of written history. Are the Dead Sea scrolls invalid? Are the history textbooks used in public schools, private schools, or colleges invalid? Which documents should we hold as credible and which should we hold as unreliable? " Good questions. I add two to that list: can a book that tells of things unverified by any outside witness be trusted? Why should we not consign the Bible to the fiction sections of our libraries? === C4: === Note: I am speaking directly to my opponent, contrary to form, for this point. "Would you believe me if I said that I knew the players of my jv baseball team at school? " Perhaps. It sounds reasonable; I have no way of knowing this for certain, though. "Would you believe me if I said I knew Rajai Davis of the Oakland A's or Lionel Chattelle formerly of the NY Mets, both of which were former team mates of mine? " Maybe. This is a verifiable claim; if you offered evidence that they were your team-mates, I would probably believe you. "Perhaps the latter requires a little more faith to believe? " No, it takes more evidence. It is a more improbable claim, and requires better proof. "Now would you believe me if I said if I said I knew God? Perhaps this requires even more faith. " I do not have to have faith in you. For reasons of common courtesy, I choose to believe that your unprovable and subjective claim is either: a) true, or b) something you believe in good faith to be true. I do not have any reason to believe that such IS true on your mere word, though. Your claim remains, not believed, but uncriticized. "However, as surely as I am typing this, I state that I not only know my jv baseball players, not only do I know "Raj" or "L Train", but I also know God. " Your word, only. Recognize that your unsupported word does not constitute evidence for the existence of any of those people, please. _______________ CONCLUSION: My opponent has yet to verify his only source for God: the Bible. He also has left untouched my accusations of circular reasoning. He has not yet come close to proving God