Does God Exist

Defense of TAGMy opponent's last rebuttal is self-incriminating. Much to my surprise, my opponent actually advocates relative truth. One must ask why he wanted to debate me to begin with. If truth is relative, than I win and he wins. We both win because we are both right. Right? The idea of relative truth is self-refuting. The statement, "There is no absolute truth" is an absolute truth claim. It can only be true if it is false. He refers to the infinite regress problem, which incidentally supports TAG. The infinite regress problem is not proof of relative morality, its proof of presupposition. It deals with the nature of knowledge, not of truth itself. Specifically, it is the primary dilemma of the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge. [1][2] The infinite regress problem shows that all our knowledge ultimately rests on basic beliefs. In short, the infinite regress problem supports TAG's claim that we all have worldviews. Finally, Con attributes logic as being a property of the universe but then, in practically the same breath, says that abstract notions are nonsense. Then what are numbers? What are ideas? Is this the direction Con really wants to go? Also, why didn't my opponent respond to my fancy graphic about the nature of God? That was the cornerstone of TANG. By not responding to that objection (and congratulating me on my mad Photoshopping skills), he has effectively let TANG die. My opponent has denied the reality of logic, truth, and abstract entities. Yet he argues with me as though there is truth. He uses fallacies against me as though there is logic. He uses paradoxes as though there are abstractions. This is precisely the kinds of internal contradictions that TAG predicts about Atheistic worldviews. They either cannot account for the very things needed to prove God's non-existence or they deny those things as being able to prove God's non-existence. Either way, he can't prove God's non-existence unless he is wrong and God does in fact exist. The Issue of EvidenceI don't know where Con is trying to go with this argument. I said I was defending the Christian God because I happen to believe that Christianity is true. That doesn't change the fact that Con has at least some burden to show that no god exists, and his insistence on pointing to other religions doesn't help his case, even if it is damaging to mine. However, this whole piece of the debate has been irrelevant from the start. I explained the nature of evidence to refute his assertion that there is no evidence for Christianity whatsoever. Yet he continues to insist as much without explaining why. My opponent simply does not understand what evidence is, nor does he understand that a lack of evidence for Christianity is still not a positive case for Atheism. Contradictions in the Nature of GodMy opponent is understandably frustrated with my rebuttal to the omnipotence paradox. He wonders how I justify calling it intrinsically impossible. Con said in round 1, "If he cannot create the stone, then there is something that he can't do and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can create the stone, then there is still something he can't do and he is not omnipotent. " In these two sentences, he states that whatever cannot both lift the rock and not lift the rock is not omnipotent. Those two sentences define omnipotence as doing that which is intrinsically impossible. He then does an about face and agrees that the term is nonsense and insists that God is nonsense for the same reason. He admits to the term's nonsense: a term which is the foundation of his argument. He has effectively—though perhaps unwittingly—confessed to circular reasoning. Furthermore, my opponent was never justified in applying this understanding of omnipotence to the God of the Bible. I was very clear, with scriptural references, that God is portrayed as being both almighty and limited by his character. Con tried to show that this was not the case, but he never showed us in Scripture. Since Scripture is the source by which we define the Christian God, it was incumbent upon him to convince us that the Bible attributes this hyper-literal treatment of omnipotence to God. As for omniscience, I am glad to submit to my opponent's request to use my earlier definition of "infinite knowledge. " That is what the Bible teaches. But to insist that infinite knowledge includes the very contradictory notion of experiential knowledge is to render infinite knowledge as meaningless. So, the problem of circular reasoning persists. I think I argued quite clearly why experiential knowledge is not equivalent to objective knowledge and how lumping them together was to render omniscience nonsensical. Note how he didn't address my argument at all. He simply repeats is original argument about God's omniscience and accuses me of not relying on the dictionary. Unfortunately, Con fails to realize that his arguments rely on twisting those very same dictionary definitions to suit his needs. ConclusionMy opponent has struggled to keep his arguments focused and clear throughout this debate. The deeper into this issues we got, the more incongruous he became. By the end of the debate, he even rendered truth itself meaningless. I ask the readers to weight this against my case. I have shown how the paradox arguments engage in circular reasoning, and I have shown how his no-evidence argument does not prove Atheism. I have provided a strong positive proof in the form of TAG. He tried to refute with TANG, but then let it slip through the cracks in the end. On balance, I think the readers are justified in recognizing my position as being better supported. Regardless of the outcome, I thank both IFLYIGH and the readers for their time and consideration. Thank you. Sources . http://www.theoryofknowledge.info... . http://en.wikipedia.org...