the existence of a Christian God

The burden of proof can often be deduced from the wording of the resolution. In this case, being that the resolution is neutral in its assertion, I concluded that both sides have burden of proof. My opponent disagrees, and he is entitled to do so. In the end, the voters will decide. My opponent's play-by-play rebuttal does little to refute my actual argument and serves as an example of the dangers of such an approach. This kind of per-paragraph commentary only manages to refute individual statements outside of the context in which they have their meaning. As a result, he failed to address my actual argument. There are over twenty references to worldviews, presuppositions, pre-commitments, and assumptions in my opening statements. Clearly, my argument centers on worldviews. A worldview is a collection of presuppositions—assumptions about the reality and nature of things like morality, knowledge, human worth, and so forth. A worldview acts as an intellectual filter through which we interpret facts into evidence, distinguish between right and wrong, and determine value and worth. All people carry theses sets of assumptions, including myself and my opponent. In this debate, I specifically cite the worldview conflict between atheism and theism, and he did not address it. After a few commentaries that simply amount to saying, "I'm not sure where you're going with this," he engages the Argument from Evil. He says, "If something all loving, all knowing (of course implying they already knew the future), and all powerful were to create something, how or why would it be evil, and why would there be suffering? He's like an apple tree making bananas [sic]: it just doesn't make sense." He doesn't say why it doesn't make sense, he just asserts it. I hope he's not arguing from lack of imagination, for he accuses me of this very thing later on. He goes on to say that Evil does not have to be both transcendent and immutable, once again, without substantiating this position. In fact, his entire critique here is assumptive. He doesn't feel a need to explain these obvious (to him at least) self-attesting truths. But wait! Atheistic assumptions are what I attacked in the first place. He's using the very worldview I refuted in my opening argument. Had he made any effort to refute my actual argument, this would not be an issue. As it stands, he's arguing (well, assuming rather) from a faulty foundation. Allow me to explain again why morality must be universally binding and absolute in order for the Argument from Evil to be intelligible. Imagine how ridiculous it would sound to say that God cannot exist because it doesn't make sense for Him to make something I think is ugly, or smelly, or boring. It is the equivalent of saying, "Because there exists things I dislike, God can't exist." Subjective morality is philosophically arbitrary and not much different than mere opinion. The argument in this case is built on sand. Only an appeal to absolute morality can make this argument meaningful, and only the Christian theistic worldview can appeal to such a concept of evil. This is a difficult bind that my opponent has not begun to address. To make matters worse for him (and much better for me), he gives credibility to this dilemma by saying, "Your right, atheism cannot appeal to absolute morality." My opponent has conceded my premise and made my conclusion all the stronger. My opponent goes on to insist I am arguing from a lack of imagination, demanding proof he claims is absent. Did he not read my argument? I will post my closing paragraph from round one again, which summarizes my proof: "In the final analysis, atheism cannot rationally account for logical laws, scientific principles, objective knowledge, and absolute morals—the very things my opponent needs to even participate in this debate. Oh, he will certainly use these things, but in so doing, he relies on Christian presuppositions. In this way, he will be like the man arguing against the existence of air all the while breathing it. He can argue for atheism only if it is false. Therefore, atheism is false and the Christian God exists." To paraphrase, the proof of the Christian God is that outside of the Christian theistic worldview, one cannot prove anything. Debate presupposes logical laws, scientific principles, moral obligation, etc. Christian theism is the only worldview whose presuppositions meet all the necessary preconditions to account for these things. Therefore, God exists. My opponent has not even acknowledged my argument. I have offered my proof; he either chooses to ignore it or does not understand it. In either case, he has one round left in which to refute it. To do so will require philosophically sound proof that atheistic presuppositions indeed provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible debate. Lastly, I will address my opponent's question regarding the validity of the Greek or Egyptian gods. As I do, I urge the readers to notice that my opponent did not assert anything in this regard. He merely demanded that I proved they do not exist. This, of course, is not the resolution we are debating. This amounts to a red herring defense. Instead of engaging my arguments head on, he flanks me with these questions. That being said, I will use similar worldview philosophy to explain why these gods cannot exist. In these two philosophies, the gods either lack transcendence, immutability, or both—the necessary preconditions for the things I discussed earlier. These gods are described as extremely capricious, unpredictable, and imperfect beings. It is irrational for a follower of these mythologies to appeal to absolute morality or immutable logical laws just like it is for the atheist. The Christian God on the other hand transcends the physical universe and he is perfect, thus accounting for the kinds of things necessary to know anything at all. In this way, the Christian Worldview is easily superior to the Greek and Egyptian mythologies. To summarize this round, my opponent has yet to address my main argument. He has made many assertions and few arguments. However, he has one more opportunity to turn the tables. I open the floor to him and look forward to our final rounds.