There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

#1&2 we ca ignore. 3: //If logic is a convention of man, then it is not absolute// The problem with what my opponent just said is that if there is even ONE man made logical construct that is absolute, his claim falls entirely. //for these notions directly oppose each other since conventions can change. // Also, logic is not necessarily a convention of man, logic is merely a way to discern something. With this being said an absolute logical law is that 1>0. *** That is to say, that the number one is a bigger number than 0. This is never false. It is true in all social constructs, in all regions of the world. Everywhere. This is a man made logical law and it is not changing even if we change. Because I have given an example of an absolute logical law that man has derived yet it has not changed (and will not change) point 5 falls. But allow me to give another for you. A+B=B+A. Or another: If A=B and B=C. .. .A=C. Or another: If X then Y. X therefore Y. (If it is Wednesday I go to work. It is Wednesday therefore I go to work) //In short, logic must be abstract and absolute due to the impossibility of the contrary. I invite my opponent to show otherwise. // Well, I have shown that humans can create absolute logical laws and I might add my opponent seems to have inadvertently admitted this by saying "Sure, we may witness the logical laws at work in such things, but the laws of logic would not suddenly cease to exist if you removed all matter from the universe" meaning that the laws of logic we use to understand the Cosmos is absolute. But it was NOT god who gave us those laws. It is quite to the contrary. We discovered and formulated the laws that my opponent concedes are logical absolutes. 4: //human minds do not meet the preconditions necessary to make logical laws immutable. .. // The two minds do not need to be the same to make laws which hold true. Take the star example YOU gave as well as my limited list of examples above. //Furthermore, individual human minds are subject to change due to either internal or external influences. Therefore, any mind that accounts for logical laws must itself be immutable. // What? Ok so if we take this as true that means that when my opponent jumps up there is a chance he will float up since the logical law of gravity was formulated by a changing human mind. Is this what you are trying to argue? A mind does NOT have to be immutable for a law to be absolute. But let's do a test. I want all the voters to jump up. If they float up and away your assertion is correct. If they fall down I have shown that logical absolutes can exist via changeable human minds. //is he not just giving an arbitrary name to God himself// Not at all. If I were and you agreed that I was you would prove your own god wrong since your god has no body and a computer does. //In the end, we are both speaking of a super-natural entity governing our existence. // This is false again. I am not saying the computer created everything. I am merely saying that computers can be unchanging whilst formulating logical laws. I am not using a "red herring to cheat [my] way out of [my] burden". I am proposing an alternate possibility to your false dichotomy. You assert that god is the only immutable thing. But this is just not true. //explaining how such a computer comes to exist in the first place// *Copy-pasta from last round* "***Now I know one would argue that the system would first have to be programmed but that is irrelevant. We are not talking about the programmer. We are talking about the system itself and the system will not change unless told to do so thus it is immutable. " //Is he really arguing that my God is imaginary using an imaginary computer? // No. You missed the argument entirely. I am saying that your assertion is wrong. You claim the ONLY immutable thing is god and I am showing this is false. I am not trying to use to computer to disprove god, I am using it to show that your premise for proving him is fallacious. //An imaginary computer is not an explanation, just a cop out. // I am not trying to cop out. I am showing you that your premise, which I will repeat again, logical laws must come from immutable minds (false) and that immutable mind must be god. I am showing that there are other things that are immutable minds. Do you understand what I am arguing? I am showing your final premise, the assertion that god is the only immutable mind is false. You claiming it is a cop out is a way for you to not answer it. You have still not proven your god is the only immutable mind thus your main argument falls. 5: //If a mind can grow and change independently of logical laws, then the rational conclusion is that the mind in question did not produce those laws. // That is the rational conclusion? Not at all. A mind changes by learning things but it is still the same mind. Cross apply my argument from 3 that shows the another basic premise, immutable minds are the only thing that can produce logical absolutes, is flawed. // In other words, Pro has not refuted this point. // What? I have not refuted this point. Your claim rests on the assertion that the only thing that can produce logical abosolutes is an immutable mind but I have shown time and time again that this premise is flawed. //I ask Pro, if logical laws are not the product of an immutable mind, from whence do they come? // From a normal, human mind. Look at all my aforementioned examples. //And don't say a computer. .. // Oh my lordy lordy. I am using the computer as an example to show that your assertion that logical absolutes can ONLY come from god is a flawed premise. I have given another example of a thing from which they could come and you have yet to refute it thus I extend it. 6: I employ a redefinition fallacy? Well you defined nothing except god soo. .. . I am saying that computers CAN produce logical laws. My opponent then is claiming that the computer is supernatural. This just shows the fact that he is not understanding the argument I am making. I am showing that there are other ways to get logical laws, not just via god which you assert without thinking of anything else. The super computer does not govern the universe. What you are doing here is what is called a straw man. You are trying to claim I said something I never did and then refuting that. Please extend all my arguments showing that other things can be immutable and make logical laws. 7: Your "debunking" of my computer argument is a strawman and you have left the actual one intact. Try again? I will hit 8 in my conclusion. (Regarding the definition, you should define you terms before we're halfway through) Conclusion: EXTEND THE I AM GOD argument please. The basic premise of my opponent's argument is that humans cannot make logical absolutes which is just false. As shown above I have given examples of logical absolutes that humans have made (and my opponent has been kind enough to give me one) The fact that humans have made logical absolutes discredits my opponent's entire argument. Also, my opponent did minimal work on refuting my actual argument regarding the computer. He just stawmaned it. Also, extend my argument that I am god which also disproves his point. There are now 3 things that refute him and let me add it would be unfair for my opponent to bring up new arguments now seeing as I have no chance to refute them. He can defend his claims but bringing new arguments against old stuff is unfair to me. Thank you and vote PRO. ***Here one might argue that this is not a logical law but it is. The definition of logic is: "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "[1] and one would say a law is a rule. 1>0 by using this basic foundation we can investigate all other numbers thus it is logic that is being used and it is a law because it is a rule. Ergo, logical law. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...