Atheism vs. Theism

I thank jimccartney for his prompt response. While he is confident in his refutation, I am afraid he has refuted something other than TAG.Defending TAGMy opponent's rebuttals expose a critical misunderstanding of TAG. It is a transcendental argument, a type of inductive reasoning. It examines human experience and then determines the proper worldview that accounts for that experience. My opponent has misread my arguments to be deductive, as though I was proving God by merely pointing to human experience. I will do my level best to expose his errors.The Presuppositional Conflict of WorldviewsMy opponent does not seem understand what a worldview is. He explicitly interprets worldviews as "meaning that what I find nice may not be what my opponent finds nice." This is a gross misunderstanding.I carefully defined a worldview as a set of one's presuppositions. I cited the epistemological problem of infinite regression to argue that everyone has presuppositions: unjustified beliefs about reality. Assumptions. My opponent never addressed this argument, which preceded all other arguments. It is foundational to understanding TAG. I'll say it again, we both have worldviews with conflicting presuppositions.TAG focuses on determining which presuppositions are erroneous. Let's see if I can make this clearer as I respond to each of my opponent's rebuttals.Laws of LogicMy opponent's rebuttal on this point is entirely off topic. I argued about the laws of logic and he responds by saying that there could be no universe if there were no laws of gravity, physics, etc. It's a good observation, I guess, but it doesn't even begin to address the challenge I set forth.I argued that logic, which he is using in this debate, can only be accounted for using Christian presuppositions. Perhaps my opponent doesn't understand what I mean by account. What I mean to say is this: if atheism is true, how are the laws of logic universal and unchanging? How are they reliable for acquiring knowledge?He hasn't accounted for the laws of logic in an atheistic worldview. Therefore, this premise remains wholly unrefuted.Uniformity of NatureMy opponent again misreads my arguments. Worldviews are not simply what we think is nice and pretty. Worldviews are inevitable philosophical constructs that govern every human's thinking. Again, my opponent has not given an account for the uniformity of nature from an atheistic worldview framework.Moral Absolutes"Objective morality is relative and is different across everyone."If what my opponent says is true, then on what basis does he morally criticize the Nazis, the Old Testament, or anything for that matter? My opponent is a walking contradiction. This is a debate about the truth of atheism. It is quite bold to argue that atheism is objectively true based on the claims that "theism has lied" and "theism is corrupt," only to turn around in the very next round and claim that morality is just a personal opinion. This is intellectually indefensible. My opponent cannot have it both ways. If morality is relative, then he must abandon every moral argument he has made in his defense.This exemplifies precisely what I meant when I said, "Atheists behave as though there are real moral absolutes when they engage in these kinds of arguments, but they cannot account for them." He acts as though morality carries objective weight in his own arguments but then treats morality as utterly arbitrary when rebutting mine. Atheism is unintelligible in this regard and ought to be rejected as a worldview.Freedom in Thinking and ThoughtThis is the only time my opponent tries to give an atheistic account of something. He points to a hypothesis that brain function begins on the quantum level. That is interesting, isn't it? I wonder why quantum level thinking would cause this. Oh, my opponent doesn't say; he just says it works. You know, for all his willingness to criticize theists for putting God in the gaps, is sure is quick to put any old theory in the gaps. I guess a wizard makes it happen?I suppose he wants me to do his job for him and point out that quantum fluctuations are themselves unpredictable. Unfortunately, this is just equivocation. The fact that quantum fluctuation has no apparent pattern does not mean there aren't fixed laws behind them. Even the author of my opponent's source points out that we can one day simulate the brain once we understand how to make quantum computers. Why would someone say such a thing if quantum physics is truly random?It was a good try, but it doesn't account for free thinking. If quantum physics has no laws, then nature is not uniform and the appeal to quantum physics is meaningless. If quantum physics is governed by laws, then freedom in thinking is yet unaccounted for in atheism.Rebuttals to Pro's Opening ArgumentsMy opponent's opening arguments are very much lacking in impact when it comes to proving atheism. Actually, they come across more as complaints against theists.Evolution disproves CreationWhile there are some theists in support of molecules-to-man evolution, I am not one of them. I agree with my opponent that evolution is incompatible with Christian theism. However, his "proof" of evolution suffers from some very heavy handed confirmation bias.1. The fossil record does reveal similarities between ancient animals and their modern counterparts. The only fact here is that we see similarities. Similarity does not prove anything, and to claim it as proof for evolution alone is non sequitur.2. DNA between animals also share similarity, but once again, similarity is not proof of anything. It is just as reasonable to claim that the similarity between organisms' DNA is evidence of an intelligent designer. Either way, this is non sequitur. We need more than similarity.3. Animals with allegedly useless organs is, again, just that. There are so many reasons an organ might not have a function. One explanation is that our environment changes such that they are no longer useful. Or perhaps we don't yet understand its purpose. It is far too hasty to point to this as indisputable proof of evolution.4. Natural selection does occur, but this does not prove that evolution is the origin of life. It only proves that certain variations within species will propagate over others given various environment factors. It is equally plausible that God designed such adaptability into his creation.Remember, this is my rebuttal, not my proof for theism. I am not saying all these things prove God. In fact, I aim to show that neither of us can prove either position on these four facts. My opponent has made a mighty leap towards what he sees as a foregone conclusion. He will need much more than a Discovery TV article to make his case here.The Earth is more than 10,000 years oldI have no problem with the fact that the earth is old. There are many theists that believe likewise. The Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old. It is only some people's interpretation of the Bible that say so. My opponent's argument here is just a complaint about young earth creationists.Theism has liedMy opponent engages in pure conjecture about ancient knowledge. He offers no evidence to back up this claim. It is just another ad hominem prejudice he feels compelled to share.Theism is corruptMy opponent criticizes the Old Testament for condoning evil. Unfortunately, my opponent already stated that there is no objective morality, so his arguments here are just the ranting of one's moral opinion.Of course, if we wants his moral argument to carry more weight, he can withdraw his claim that morality is relative, but then he would be in quite a pickle since there is no rational way to account for objective morality in an atheistic worldview.Facts and data always disprove faith and philosophyThis is just a bizarre statement altogether. Facts and data are just that: facts and data. They don't prove or disprove anything other than the event they observed. Facts and data must always be interpreted. That's why one fact, such as the similarity in DNA between species, can be interpreted as evidence either of non-teleological evolution or intelligent design. My opponent severely begs the questions on this point.God is impossibleHe claims God is not possible because nothing could exist before the big bang. This is a straw man argument because I never once defined God as physical or bound by time. I am defending a theology that teaches God is a timeless spirit. Furthermore, my opponent has no warrant to claim he knows what is beyond the Big Bang singularity. Everything he listed is one of many competing theoretical models. No one knows for sure, and my opponent's claiming it as fact is another example of his conformational bias.ConclusionMy opponent has no case for atheism beyond personal attacks and bare assertions. I'm glad he's so convinced, but his job is to convince others, not just say it is so. I do hope he is able to provide something more substantial in his final round.He did not rebut TAG although he did rebut some other argument I never made. He is free, of course, to knock down straw men all day, but thus far he has fail to address some very serious allegations against atheism. I have challenged him to defend the atheistic worldview's right to employ logic, science, morality, and reason in debate. We have had no such defense on the first three and I feel his account for free thinking has been reasonably refuted.