the existence of a Christian God

It has been enjoyable. My opponent's main hang-up is his misguided belief that he is unbiased and neutral, as though he does not operate on assumptions. All people operate on assumption. In fact, all people MUST operate on assumptions because finite humans cannot infinitely appeal to a greater truth. When people assert a truth, it is expected that we ask "Why? " When they appeal to a greater truth, we can ask it again. We can keep doing this, but eventually, they will say, "Because it just is that way. " Worldviews are a commonly understood and widely accept concept in philosophy. My opponent cannot imagine that people have these worldviews and therefore is the one guilty of arguing from lack of imagination. I have been offering a version of a known proof of God, often referred to as the Transcendental Argument from God's Existence. [1] It was pioneered by Dr. Cornelius Van Til and improved upon by Dr. Greg Bahnsen. My opponent is quick to accuse me of making no argument and offering no proof. Indeed, my proof is out there for all to see. The fact that he doesn't comprehend it does not excuse him from having to refute it. He cannot say it is simply unimportant or inaccessible and hope to win by simply saying I haven't said anything meaningful. Going back to my critique of the Argument from Evil he says, "He says that I have to support that Evil doesn't have to be both transcendent and immutable, but I'm not the one the claimed it was in the first place. He doesn't give any evidence as to why we should think such. " I did indeed offer evidence of this. Again, using transcendental argumentation (a philosophically valid technique) I argued that objective Evil was the necessary precondition to make sense of it. For the argument to be meaningful, evil MUST be objective. If evil is not objective, then it is arbitrary and based on man's consensus. In that case, the argument sounds like this, "God cannot exist because what we THINK is evil exists. " This is as ridiculous as saying, "God doesn't exist because liver & onions exists, and almost nobody likes liver & onions. " Recall that we are dealing with worldviews. Yes, I ASSUME God exists and he's revealed himself. My opponent ASSUMES only science brings knowledge and (most likely) that there is no supernatural reality. Carl Sagan is famous for saying the cosmos is all there is, ever was, or ever will be. How does he know? Has he seen beyond it? Of course not, this is an assumption. If even the great Carl Sagan makes assumptions, then they can't be merely dismissed. If assumptions are invalid starting points, then every single debate on this site is invalid. If everyone makes assumptions, how do we know which ones are to be rejected? After all, not all assumptions can be true. Dr. Bahnsen developed three criteria by which a worldview could be accepted: it must rationally account for human experience, it must not be arbitrary, and it must be internally consistent. [2] The invisible, inaudible pink unicorn worldview fails immediately because it is arbitrary, and by this, I mean that there is no objective standard to which outsiders can appeal. Atheism is not arbitrary, as it appeals to the natural order, which everyone can observe. However, it fails on its internal consistency. Atheism asserts that no absolute abstract entities exist, yet absolute abstract entities are a necessary precondition for intelligent debate (as one example). Christian theism does pass all three tests. It is internally consistent, able to account for the very things necessary to have meaning without borrowing from other worldviews. For example, the law of induction—which is necessary for scientific principles to be meaningful—can be justified by Christian presuppositions without having to appeal to a worldview in which God can't exist. It is not arbitrary, since the Bible (God's revelation, yes, another assumption) is externally available for all to observe and analyze. Finally, it can account for human experience. Absolute abstract entities such as universally binding logical and moral laws are intelligible and reliable in this worldview without having to borrow from another worldview. For fear the readers believe my opponent's allegations that I am not offering a proof, I will say it again. The proof that God exists is because when we assume Christianity is true all necessary preconditions for human experience are met. When we assume atheism is true the necessary preconditions for human experience (and meaningful debate in particular) are not met. Since atheistic assumptions cannot be true, the atheist assumption that God does not exists is not true. Therefore, God exists. Let me finally address my opponent's claim as to why he's won: 1) My opponent's argument is an argument from ignorance Not true. I explained quite clearly that I understand the Argument from Evil. My opponent, on the other hand, does not comprehend presuppositional argumentation. Therefore, if anyone is guilty of arguing from ignorance, it is he. 2) My opponent's argument affirms the consequent Not true. Transcendental arguments do not affirm the consequent so long as a single necessary precondition can be identified. Affirming the consequent occurs when saying "If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. " Transcendental arguments state, "P is the necessary precondition of Q. Q. Therefore, P. " For example, I commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent when I say, "If Fire, then Oxygen. Oxygen. Therefore, Fire. " Oxygen may exist for reason other than Fire. However, I can say, "Oxygen is the necessary precondition of Fire. Fire. Therefore, Oxygen. " This is logically sound. 3) My opponent does not live up to his burden of proof Yes I did, you just ignore it or declare it inaccessible. Ipse Dixit. 4) My opponent deems logical paradoxes as arguments from ignorance I said, "I hope he's not arguing from lack of imagination, for he accuses me of this very thing later on. " This was a tongue-in-cheek response to your accusations that I don't understand the Argument from Evil, which is false. 5) He gives no physical evidence You assume this is the only acceptable kind of evidence without substantiation. You are in a philosophical trap here. I though you said assumptions can't prove anything? If your assumptions are allowed as a starting points, then so are mine. 6) The existence of god remains unproven The readers will decide this. Vote Pro. Thanks. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.butler-harris.org... (This link was down as of this writing, hope it's only temporary. )