There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

I appreciate my opponent's rapid responses, which I hope to address to their fullest herein.Defense of Argument In the event it is not obvious, my point-by-point argument is cumulative. That is, each point is not meant to stand in isolation from the others. Rather, each point follows from the preceding argument. 1. This is a logical argument. This is the type of argument I am making: a logical one. This is in contrast to an evidential or moral argument. 2. Pro must use logical laws to refute this argument. Since this is a logical argument, if it is going to be refuted at all, it must be refuted using logic alone. 3. In order for the refutation to be meaningful, logical laws must be abstract and absolute. Logical laws must universally apply to everyone. That is to say, true cannot equal false under any circumstances. If logic is a convention of man, then it is not absolute, for these notions directly oppose each other since conventions can change. As soon as we allow for any possibility for logical laws to change, we rob them of their reliability and ability to lead to real truth. Logical laws are not concrete objects. Logic is not composed of star dust or energy fluctuations. Sure, we may witness the logical laws at work in such things, but the laws of logic would not suddenly cease to exist if you removed all matter from the universe. In short, logic must be abstract and absolute due to the impossibility of the contrary. I invite my opponent to show otherwise. 4. In order for logical laws to be abstract, they must be the product of thought, i.e., a mind. Abstract entities are only accessible through thought. Indeed, this is what separates them from their concrete counterparts. However, human minds do not meet the preconditions necessary to make logical laws immutable, since no two minds are the same. Furthermore, individual human minds are subject to change due to either internal or external influences. Therefore, any mind that accounts for logical laws must itself be immutable. Pro uses a red herring to cheat his way out of his burden. Consider his notion of a computer so advanced as to be able to uphold the entire universe. This computer is unchanging. Even if I grant my opponent this most super of all computers, is he not just giving an arbitrary name to God himself? In the end, we are both speaking of a super-natural entity governing our existence. Nevertheless, there is a better reason to believe that the entity is actually God, and not a computer. A computer is, by definition, designed. To attribute logical laws to it does not automatically relieve Pro of his burden since he has simply heaped upon himself the burden of explaining how such a computer comes to exist in the first place. I am arguing that God exists. He is arguing that God does not, i.e., that I am imagining him. Is he really arguing that my God is imaginary using an imaginary computer? Either Pro has a real explanation of logical laws without the need for God or he does not. An imaginary computer is not an explanation, just a cop out. 5. In order for this mind to produce absolute logical laws, it must be immutable. If a mind can grow and change independently of logical laws, then the rational conclusion is that the mind in question did not produce those laws. In which case, there must be an even greater mind that produces them: one that is actually immutable. In other words, Pro has not refuted this point. Instead of making an effort to give an alternative account for logical laws, he simply assumes that logical laws exist independently of all thought. I ask Pro, if logical laws are not the product of an immutable mind, from whence do they come? And don't say a computer unless you actually intend to provide evidence for such a claim. 6. In order for this mind to be immutable, it must transcend nature (i.e., supernatural) and be unchanging. Pro's point here employs the fallacy of redefinition. If there is indeed a computer that produces these laws, is Pro implying that it's a physical computer of some kind? Is it running in a virtual server cluster in Silicon Valley? I hardly see a need to point out the absurdity in such thinking. Yet, if this computer is The-Most-Holy-Super-Computer that governs the universe, then by definition it is super-natural. That is, it is outside of our cosmos. 7. The God of the Holy Bible meets the necessary precondition for an unchanging, supernatural mind. As I've already discussed, Pro's computer theory is rife with fallacious thinking. 8. In order for Pro to refute this argument, God must exist. If points 1 through 7 hold true, then logic is valid only because God exists. Therefore, any argument negating his existence is self-refuting, that is, they can only be true if they are false. My opponent is using logic laws, of which he cannot account, to refute the God that makes those very laws meaningful. Pro's rebuttal on this point ignores the context of the point within the greater argument. He treats it as a point that stands alone, thereby employing the straw man fallacy. Any argument becomes weak when its premises are dismantled and refuted in isolation. In order to properly refute this point, Pro should be prepared to show how it does not follow from the previous seven points. Conclusion My argument attempts to account for logical laws. Pro's response is to dream up a super-computer that is an insufficient alternative at best and just another name for God at worst. He makes no effort to account for the reliability of logic in a universe without God. In so doing he begs the readers to assume logical laws are valid without God. My arguments on the other hand are detailed and flow from point to point. Even if some readers are not themselves convinced of my conclusions, I surely hope they can see that I have taken greater care than my opponent at substantiating my claims. Sources http://www.thefreedictionary.com...