The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1A

"Which ones? And what method did you use to quantify this?" ----> If you were to read my previous round, I listed three factors for causing experiences. The human brain's susceptibility to overgeneralizing patterns, tricks of the eye/optical illusions/things of this sort, and even hallucinations. I did not state that this happened to EVERYONE, but that these would account at least for some. For the many OTHERS who didn't likely have experiences caused by these three factors, is when my following argument applied. "My opponent is amazing indeed! With keen precision he is able to deduce, without ever meeting any of them, the exact affliction of approximately 6.5 Billion separate and distinct individuals. Maybe soon my opponent will be able to diagnose cancer from a distance." ----> Your sarcasm is appreciated. It is very well known that anecdotal evidence is not evidence for scientists. I will explain why with the following arguments. ~Counterarguments~ 1. Anecdotal evidence My point is that anecdotal evidence can not be passed as scientific evidence for many reasons. I will list them accordingly in an ABC format. *A. Not falsifiable Unless we had a time machine, there is no way for us to falsify personal experiences. When my opponent states "the Big Bang Theory and Macro evolution has examples ï¿½€" neither can be replicated." as the reason why these two theories are unfalsifiable, this is erroneous. For two reasons: a theory mustn't need to be replicated to be falsified. It's predictions are contentious of being falsified, and both of these theories definitely give predictions. Secondly, both evolution and the big bang theory can and have been replicated in some manner. Evolution by speciation in lab experiments [1], and the Big Bang with the Large Hadron Collider [2]. Unless my opponent is a classical justificationist, I would expect that many would agree falsification is a condition that needs to be met when considering what is scientific evidence. *B Needs to be scientific evidence It is very well known that anecdotes are not scientific evidence, as they can't be investigated through the scientific method. When my opponent states that not all evidence is scientific evidence, such as law, he is wrong when applying this argument. Courts of law use testimonies because of three reasons: individual cases are unique and different from the rest, people remember significant events more easily [5], and people are less likely to lie under perjury[6]. Even with these reasons, it is well known in court that eyewitness testimonies are many times unreliable, which is why law has mechanisms for verifying such testimonies[7]. Law determines the truth of individual cases, while science determines the truth of how the physical world works. This is why scientific evidence is needed. 2. Other problems with my opponent's argument Besides anecdotal evidence being one of the major flaws in this argument from religious experience, using reductio ad absurdum I will show two other flaws with his argument. "This is the fallacy of consequences." ----> Very untrue. I am not committing the appeal to consequences fallacy, but rather I am using the method of reductio ad absurdum [3]. This basically entails that if I assume your claim to be true, and come to an absurd (false/impossible) outcome, then by applying the law of non-contradiction this would make your claim wrong. *A. Confirmation of other widely-believed/experienced claims If my opponent states that large number of experiences validate a claim, then by applying this argument many claims involving UFO's, mythical monsters such as Bigfoot can all be validated. The only reason why pseudoscientific claims such as these have fewer claims is because the likely naturalistic explanation for these sightings are dependent on several confining factors. For example, the Bigfoot sightings can very well be attributed to certain animals, such as certain types of bears. So obviously, Bigfoot sightings wouldn't be find across the world, but mainly in forests of North America. Loch Ness sightings obviously take place in bodies of waters, which already limits the amount of sightings. The experiences of God however, can take place practically anywhere. When dealing with a metaphysical being that has control over the world, it can very well be accounted for in many ways and situations people go through in their life. I will explain in further arguments about the role of subjective validation. *B. Religions and gods that are Mutually Incompatible "The Christian and Muslim God is the Abrahamic God, there is no contradiction. " ---->I doubt my opponent would say that the god of Christianity is the same as the god of Islam, in pertinence to teachings, attributes, and traditions. Besides, these are only 2 of 22 major religions. For the many other non-Abrahamic religions, the gods of each religion are obviously incompatible. "Also there is no contradiction when referring to the basic notion of god either. Billions of people have experienced god, and it is only after people start to try to characterize that god that contradictions surface." ---->Billions of people have experienced god with a subjective validation, which is a form of cognitive bias[4]. For example, when confronted with two coincidences, a person with a belief system they have will attribute these coincidences to their beliefs. This is why I bring up examples of Yu-Gi-Oh cards being magically found. A perfectly naturalistic explanation of finding that Yu-Gi-Oh card is that someone may have found it, and placed it in a convenient place. However (as this is a real story from my friend), a Christian can attribute this to God helping him find his card. Thus the subjective validation effect. If my opponent can show many people have experiences that actually explicitly reveal to them the correct god, then this will definitely be a hard task for me to tackle. However, as I would suspect, if he argues that people have experiences of a god, then this is much more likely answer. Because that's the thing, experiences are not explicit, and through subjective validation people use anecdotes as evidence. The problem is that later on, people have experiences that they say confirms their own god. Obviously two or more of these gods can't exist at the same time, so which is it? If my opponent argues the first option, that people experience the explicit god, then this would defeat my argument, though he would have to somehow account for differing religions. However, if he were to argue that people would experience some god then later conclude into some religion, then that just shows how future experiences fall prey to the subjective validation effect. *C. Reasons why so many people "experience god" Many children are brought up, as is the tradition of religion, being taught a certain religion. Christianity is particularly widespread through some historic events, like Constantinople. When they are grown up at a young age being taught a certain belief system is true, they will believe it. And then yet again, they fall prey to subjective validation. When they have certain improbable or traumatic experiences, and survive it, they will no doubt attribute it to their religion and thus this will bolster their faith. From thereon it becomes an exponential virus, with people growing up, raising kids, teaching religion, more subjective validation effect - victims, and so on in this vicious circle. ~Conclusion~ I have accurately refuted all my opponent's point, showed why so many people have personal experiences, and explained the absurdity of this argument. ---References--- 1. http://www.talkorigins.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://skepdic.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...