Logic Analysis: These arguments prove the existence of God.

I hope he understands the pressures, the delicate choice of words, involved in arguing against the supposed proofs of one's own religion. This has been an interesting experience. I am grateful for the opportunity to examine this contention from the other side; it has been educational for me, and - I hope - for my opponent as well. I will limit this post to addressing each of my opponent's statements in order, and posting my final refutation of my opponent's arguments. ----------------- ANALYSIS OF MY OPPONENT'S STATEMENTS: "If you look at "refutations" you will see that I did address each item. " . .. except when I pointed out your circular reasoning. And though you addressed each item, you did not solve any of the problems I indicted, nor show why your original was correct. ". .. God is the only explanation for the earth's existence. " This is patently untrue. There are far too many explanations for the earth's existence to list all of them here, even if all I did for the rest of this round was to provide links. Are they all philosophically satisfying, physically plausible, or currently popular? Of course not; yet still, they exist. "I didn't state that God protected the Gypsies nor the Welsh. " No, you didn't. I gave these a examples of other "remnants" that have survived centuries of persecution; my point being by way of analogy, Israel might very well have survived in the self-same way. Israel's present existence is not prima facie proof of God's existence, as there are viable naturalistic explanations for it. "Further, God created the angel Michael and charged him to oversee the nation of Israel. " Is this even scripturally sound? I realize there is a Jewish tradition to this effect, but I'd like to see chapter and verse on this. .. preferably in the comments section, as it is rather irrelevant to this debate. Even if you can show the verses this comes from, how does this help your case at all? Again, it is pointless to try to prove God from the words of the Bible, as the Bible's verity DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON GOD'S VERY EXISTENCE. Circular arguments prove nothing. I think I've mentioned that before. .. "I did not state that the Bible depends on God's existence, but that brings up a good point. Since the Bible is God inspired, it's existence evidence of God's existence. " Sigh. .. First, I was the one to mention (as in: to attempt vainly to get across, to repeat in a fevered mantra, to write in giant letters and post on a billboard. .. ) the simple fact that the Bible is only true IF God exists. Yes, it is a good point, but you missed it entirely. I brought it up to prevent you from making the same mistake again. It didn't work, I see. .. Second, to make your statement accurate, "Since" should be changed to "If. " If the Bible was inspired/written by God, then He must exist. You have no proof for the premise; thus, this argument does not prove the consequent. Again. This makes the third or fourth incarnation of this argument in this debate, and it has not gotten any better for repetition. It is still circular reasoning, for all the same reasons I have pointed out so many times already. ===== This one deserves it's own, very special section. "My opponent validated the scientific arguments of cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments by posting links to them. Since my opponent has proven them to be valid, "Only if they are all correct, which he has not shown". My opponent took care of that for me, thereby giving me the win. Thanks! " Pardon me? How does my posting links to logical (not "scientific") arguments that have been used for the existence of God validate anything? Especially since I gave a brief summary of the problems each one has? And since my opponent has not cared to argue them for himself? I did not prove any of them to be valid; far from it. If you read the links, you will find that theologians and philosophers have been trying to do that for centuries, and that each of the arguments has fatal or near-fatal flaws. ===== "Even in a debate I would be careful about consigning the Bible to the fiction section. " Neither in this debate nor in real life do I so; however, I require better logic from you than "The Bible says so, thus it must be true. " I wanted you to go deeper than that; I am disappointed that you have only shown circular logic to back up your belief, and hoped that you would do a true analysis of your position. Still waiting. .. "Here are other links to attest to the validity of the Bible: . http://www.creatingfutures.net... . http://teens4evangelism.wordpress.com... . http://www.anunseenworld.com... All I ask is that the voters take a look at these links; the last in particular should answer any lingering questions about my opponent's reasoning. My opponent, in order to prove the Bible's validity, refers us to: -A ministry website which uses the same circular reasoning that my worthy opponent has indulged in, with a similar disdain for evidence: "Why would there need to be more historical evidence? "; -A blog entry, which argues the Bible's truth from lack of evidence to the contrary (a logical fallacy), but at least admits: ". .. But just because the Bible claims to be written by God isn't enough. I could write a note that says, "-from God" at the end, but that wouldn't mean it was true. .. " -And the prizewinning entry in this lineup, An Unseen World. A brief glance at the various entries gives us examples of sensationalism ("The Bell witch"), revised history ("Columbus: Terrorist"), and modern "feel-good" theology ("The Rapture"). The article he links us to is essentially worthless for vindicating the Bible, as it relies on vaguely worded prophecies and their supposed fulfillment in modern history; linking the two with tenuous logic and shaky assumptions. As such, these links are hardly suitable for the purpose my opponent intended them for. "Former athiest Lee Strobel went to great lengths to discredit the Bible as fiction only to find that the Bible was indeed valid. " Sources? And why does his opinion validate the Bible any more than mine or yours? Further, if he came to this conclusion logically, mightn't you have been better off posting his arguments for the validity of the Bible here, rather than merely saying he came to that conclusion? "The Dead Sea Scrolls written by the Essenes corroborate the Bible. " This is a statement, not an argument. You give no source, no evidence, no argument. This is nothing more than a bald assertion that your position must be true. "Since the Bible exists and was written by inspiration of God, God does exist. As requested, the Bible is now defended. " Since the Bible exists, but God's part in writing it is as yet completely unverified, we cannot conclude whether or not God exists from the evidence presented in this debate. ------------------ CONCLUSION: Let me summarize for the last time the essential problem with my opponent's arguments. They all run in this same circle: 1. The Bible is true, therefore God exists. 2. God exists, therefore the Bible is true. There are variations and complications on this, but we keep returning to the fugue. If my opponent posts anything in his next round that attempts to argue for the existence of God from the words of the Bible, simply apply this as my prepared refutation. I hold the resolution negated, and urge a Con vote. ----------- I enjoyed this debate, despite all it's defects; it was certainly educational for me to play the devil's advocate on this issue. I thank my opponent again for his patience and his arguments; I wish him all the best in his future debates. -Chrysippus