Logic Analysis: These arguments are valid for the existence of God.

I thank my worthy opponent for her swift and ingenious post. It must be said, winning is not always important; sometimes the lessons learned by losing far outweigh any benefits of winning. In such a case I find myself tonight. I made an error in my initial definitions and the wording of the resolution, and my opponent has used this well against me. I admit that my opponent's arguments are flawless; in each case, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. That those premises are completely absurd does not affect the validity of the arguments they are used in. As they are all unprovable (If I am the most awesome person in the world, then God exists, I've had too much to drink, If I've had too much to drink, then God exists), almost impossible to prove (You're finding this funny, I am the most awesome person in the world), or subjective (I am the most awesome person in the world, You're finding this funny, I've had too much to drink), these arguments are useless for proving the existence of God. Unfortunately, such was merely the intent of the debate, not the resolution. As it stands, through three completely absurd yet logically correct arguments my inventive opponent has fulfilled her burden, and affirmed the resolution. I concede this debate. EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE IS IRRELEVANT TO VOTING VVV ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A few words on semantics. I understand that there is a strong undercurrent on this site against the use of purely semantical arguments in serious debates. The feeling is, when someone has a legitimate topic they wish to debate, it is impolite to take their debate and deny them any serious consideration of the topic. I myself enjoy a creative semantics debate, especially in a more casual setting; to quote people and twist the meanings of their words so that they are agreeing with you, and then to watch them try to work their way out of the tangle. As such, although my opponent completely subverted the intent of this debate, I'm not overly concerned. I enjoyed the creative way in which my opponent twisted this debate. I enjoyed the chance to laugh at myself, with the wind knocked out of my sails. But most of all, I appreciate the opportunity my gracious opponent has afforded me, in giving me a springboard for my celebrated: ================== TEN-CENT LECTURE ON LOGIC! ================== (Note to the weak-minded: this section is optional; if you wish to avoid the lecture due to health concerns, you may skip reading down to the next set of double lines. ) In the comments, and even in the previous round, my opponent's arguments are incorrectly referred to as "syllogisms. " Yes, they are formally stated logical arguments; but not all logical arguments are syllogisms! A syllogism has three terms, in two premises and a conclusion. These are related in terms of "all," "some," "no;" "are/is," and "is/are not. " Thus: All A is B All B is C :. all A is C All M is N Some N is O :. some M may be O And so forth. Syllogistic logic was codified by Aristotle in his work Prior Analytics, and since has become the primary form of logic in the Western world: . http://plato.stanford.edu... Whether she intended to or not, the form that my opponent used is called Propositional Logic. The form (although she spelled it out very clearly) is: If A, then B; A :. B This form of logic was codified by the Stoic philosopher and logician Chrysippus, "without doubt the second greatest logician in the history of logic. " . http://plato.stanford.edu... see sections 5, 5.2 I was pleased when I saw her arguments, even though I knew I lost, because it gave me the perfect excuse to tell about my namesake and hero. For more information about him: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://plato.stanford.edu... For more glorious knowledge about logic: . http://plato.stanford.edu... (and I recommend digging around the rest of the site, too; many well written and trustworthy articles on philosophy :) END OF TEN-CENT LECTURE. ========= I return this debate to my opponent. it is up to her now; she can accept her guaranteed semantics win, or posit further arguments more in keeping with the original intent of this debate. I still have a round to refute any further arguments she may post, and she a round to defend in, should she so choose. Either way, I thank her for this debate, and hope that she has enjoyed it as much as I have.