Does God Exist

Response to the evidence of God's existence. I am sorry to admit that after extensive research, but pro is right that the absence of proof is not proof of absence; I guess pink unicorns exist after all. The only good thing I can say is that I did present actual evidence for disproving God instead of just trying to disprove pro's evidence. Pro has also added the extra burden of having me disprove the existence of his God. The good thing is that if you disprove one, it is not very troublesome to disprove the other. Now to start disproving pro's evidence. Pro's evidence for the existence of his God (A) Testimonies ranging from miraculous healings today to the eye-witness written about Jesus resurrection. For the sake of argument, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that miracles CAN happen. Now I'm going to show why they are not evidence of a Christian God. If miracles can count as evidence toward a Christian God, then miracles can count toward any worshiped deity. I will now present evidence of miracles of different religions. I) In [Qur'an 54:1] Muhammad supposing split the moon. This miracle supports Islam.(1)II)In Volume 4, Book 56, Number 779 of the Qu'ran, Muhammad manipulated water. This was "witnessed" by 1, 400 people, or so the verse claims. This miracle supports Islam too.(2)III)Honi ha-M'agel stood in a circle until God made it rain which was spectacular because of that rain would come during a drought at the time Honi ha-Ma'agel stood in a circle. This miracle supports Judaism. (B)Pro claims that Christianity has changed people deeply after submitting to the lord. This is invalid evidence for the same reason the above is, ALL religions have people who claim to make deep changes after converting. I) I personally underwent many changes after converting from a Jehovah's witness to a Buddhist.(By the way, I am no longer a Buddhist) II) The following link gives 14 people who changed after converting to Islam. http://answers.yahoo.com... All these evidences can’t be proof of their religion- their teachings are just too different- yet they all claim to have miracles and life transformations. Pro has been unable to present evidence as to why the Christian God is real and that is even if I do accept his Christian viewpoint of the world. REFUTING THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE (TAG) I will be arguing the TAG argument with another argument, TANG. TANG is short for Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God and was first presented by Micheal Martin.(4) As stated in (P5-P6) in the TAG argument presented by pro, God is necessary for the principals of logic to exist because it is impossible for the contrary. Also, not only must God exist, but he must have created the principals of logic for it to exist. But if something is created by God, it is not necessary, it is DEPENDENT on God. If the principals of logic are dependent on God, then God could change the principals of logic such as the law of non-contradiction. But if God can do this, then he could make it rain outside and at the same time not make it rain outside. The conclusion is that one must conclude the logic is not dependent on God and that TAG is false. We can say that the laws of logic are dependent on the universe because unlike God, the universe does not have a will and therefore cannot change anything about itself. Pro says that the laws of Logic are invariant, immaterial, and universal. I disagree with two of these characteristics, that being that Laws of Logic are invariant and universal. The laws of logic are they way they are now because of what we have observed. They are properties of mankind, devised from common sense and observations of nature. But history has shown that conclusions from observations are not always true. An example would be that humans first observed that the earth was not falling and therefore came to conclusion that the earth was resting on a giant turtle. But as our understanding of our world increase, what we observed was not that the earth rest on a turtle, but that it rest on nothing but its own gravity. The conclusion is that the only thing that is invariant is the universe and that the laws of logic are variant and depend entirely on the universe. As for them being universal, they are universal only at the present moment because the laws of logic can be applied to any situation presently. But as soon as they don't become applicable to every situation, then they are not universal until they are changed to become applicable to every situation again(hence why I said they are variable). I accept the laws of logic for the same reason I would accept a scientific theory, they are supported by the universe that we exist in. Pro claims that if I undermine the laws of logic, then neither one of us can come to an objective truth. But instead of using the laws of logic to come to an objective truth, we can use the existence of the universe to create our reasoning which will lead us to an objective truth. So in conclusion, TANG has done two things, (1) Showed that the Christians viewpoint of the world is wrong and that (2) That the universe can be the only thing to account for logic. It did (1) by showing how it is impossible for the laws of logic to depend on God and did (2) by showing that that the universe is responsible for the laws of logic by impossibility of the contrary. Rebuttal to is God a Contradiction Pro says that the Christian God is not Omnipotent because he is limited by his character. But his character does not stop him from doing what is illogically possible. This is confirmed about three sentences down in Pro's def. of God when it says "working all things according to the council of His own immutable and most righteous will". So by Pro def. of God, God is Omnipotent as long as it does not contradict any of his defining characteristics. None of God’s characteristics defined by Pro do not allow God to fit the description of the omnipotent being in the paradox of the stone. Since the paradox of the stone argument is still valid, then if follows that the def. of him "working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will" is invalid and therefore the God defined by Pro cannot exist. My argument can be rewritten as P1)Omnipotence means doing that which is logically contradictory(by definition) P2)God is Omnipotent as long as it does not contradict his defining characteristics(by Pro's def) P3)God can do that which is logically contradictory as long as it does not contradict his defining characteristics(by substitution) P4)Logically contradictory beings cannot exist P5)Therefore, God does not exist As for the Omniscient argument, I do admit that I am a little confused. How can God’s knowledge be infinite yet not omniscient; the terms are interchangeable. If he is omniscient (or if you want to say his knowledge is infinite) than he has experimental knowledge whether it be subjective or not. I agree that experimental knowledge is temporal, but if God is Omniscient or infinitely knowledgeable, then he is not eternal as proved by the Omniscient argument. It is because experimental knowledge is temporal that God is not eternal. Conclusion In the last round, pro said that my argument was in the form of an interrogative. If it seems this way, it is only because I am inexperienced with debates and let my excitement of doing this debate override me learning how to do it properly first. I hope I have turned this last round into more of an actual debate instead of just an interrogative. (1) http://sunnah.org...(2) http://sunnah.org...(3) http://www.sacred-texts.com...(4) http://www.infidels.org...