The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1G

Let me just say, TheSkeptic is a worthy opponent. Not only did he bring his "A" game, he clearly understands the nature of TAG, something many of my previous opponents have failed to grasp. This debate is certainly going to be engaging. I will defer to my opponent's structure and deal with each of his rebuttals in turn. ==================== TAG - Existence of Logical Absolutes ==================== Thankfully, my opponent does not argue against the existence of logical absolutes in general. This means we can both be rest assured that rational debate can indeed yield meaningful results. We both agree that logical laws are universally binding and can be used to pursue objective truth. Interestingly, instead of arguing that atheism can account for logical absolutes, he opts instead to show that theism cannot. Fortunately for me, this means I don't have to defend my original assertion against atheism on this matter since my opponent concedes this point. However, it does mean that I need to defend theism in this regard. TAG follows this flow of logic: Logical absolutes, by necessity, must be abstract and immutable. Being immutable, they must be transcendent, existing outside an ever changing cosmos and within another unchanging reality. Being also abstract, they must also be products of thought. The precondition, therefore, for logical absolutes is a transcendent, unchanging, and rational mind. God meets these preconditions in every way. This goes far beyond the atheist's ability to account for logical absolutes, which cannot account for abstract, immutable entities whatsoever. My opponent tries to push the problem back on the theist when he says, "The theist can't account for why God has the attributes he has, and not OTHER attributes." It is not necessary to show why God has some attributes and not others, or why he exists. All I must show is that he exists. This is the resolution. I could just as easily say that anyone claiming that logical laws are derived from nature must therefore show why the universe is X and not Y, or why it exists. It is a straw man defense. TAG argues that a particular kind of God must exist. Why he exists or why he is the way he is does not alter the validity of TAG. ==================== TAG - Uniformity of Nature ==================== My opponent and I both seem to agree that logic is absolute and nature is uniform. He says, "existence behaves consistently with itself." While my opponent recognizes this fact, he cannot account for it in his worldview, nor does he try. The universe just is what it is. He assumes it is true (and it usually works in his favor), but he doesn't justify it. The theist has justification. The necessary precondition for order is, once again, a transcendent, ordered, rational mind. It is irrational to assert that order comes from disorder and question begging to simply assert that existence is what it is. Since TAG rationally accounts for principles of scientific inquiry, it remains valid. ==================== TAG - Existence of Objective Morality ==================== My opponent claims to be a moral nihilist. He says, "We do not need to predicate God's existence to account for objective morality because objective morality does not exist." I already argued quite the opposite when I said in the first round, "So, for debate to be intelligible, logic must be necessarily true, the universe must be uniform, and morality must be universally binding." Debate relies, quite often, on moral absolutes. When a resolution argues for "is" or "is not," then we are taking a logical position. But when a resolution states "should" or "should not," then we are taking a moral position. Take one of my opponent's own debates: http://www.debate.org.... The resolution says, "Prostitution should be legalized." This is a moral position. Granted, he analyzes prostitution from an amoral position within the debate, but he does so in order to prove that prostitution's current status of being illegal is wrong. The point is that moral nihilism cannot be actively lived out. If there are no moral absolutes, then any statement of moral obligation is meaningless. If ever my opponent files a police report, defends his honor, or refuses to let others copy his homework, he is living in a world in which there are "oughts" and "ought-nots." Even his expectation that I debate rationally is based on morality. If I start denying the law of non-contradiction, he is likely to rebuke me for doing so. And if he doesn't, then I can win using any irrational tactic I choose. Moral absolutes are unavoidable. Theism accounts for these absolutes, and atheism—as demonstrated by my opponent—leads to amorality. So, TAG remains valid for accounting for moral absolutes. ==================== Failure of TAG - Non-Unique Proof ==================== My opponent's final effort is another straw man. He claims that TAG cannot prove the existence of God as defined in this debate since an allegedly infinite number of Gods could account for logical absolutes. Yet TAG does not prove the existence of an infinite amount of gods because not just any God can fulfill the prerequisite of logical absolutes. Only a transcendent, immutable, rational God meets the criteria. It doesn't matter how many gods we fabricate with the same characteristics, since in so doing we are still referring to the SAME god. A rose by any other name is still a rose. So, even if my opponent can make up a million gods, only the ones with the right characteristics fulfill TAG, and of those that do, he's really just giving different names to the same God. TAG is valid, because it does in fact argue for a unique God. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's efforts, as admirable as they are, have not yet succeeded in invalidating TAG. His attempt to show TAG does not account for logical absolutes turned out to be a straw man. His argument that nature is uniform because it just is that way was question begging. His claim to moral nihilism contradicted his actions. Lastly, his argument that TAG does not prove a unique God was based on a non sequitur notion that reimagining lots of gods with the same characteristics somehow means TAG is arguing for infinite gods. The resolution remains affirmed. And now, I give the floor back to my challenger.