The Existence of God Can Be Proven

Yes, I do accept those terms. (and when I say proof I mean proof not persuasion)First off, my opponent argues that the existence of unchanging logic somehow proves that the God of the bible exists. Logical absolutes do exist. We also have methods for obtaining knowledge and truth which are well tested such as the scientific method. Logic is simply a way for humans to describe the world around us. As a society, we can agree on most of this logic (which your God seems to break all the time). Even if logic was 'created' (which it isn't) it still wouldn't be evidence for God. "unchanging laws of logic, that cannot be the conventions of mankind" Let's put that claim to the test. Logic is a method for finding truth. Truth is simply that which is in accordance with fact or reality. To understand this better let's take a look at the Three Laws of Logic The law of identity: P is P. The law of non contradiction: P is not non-P. The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P. By definition these are conventions of mankind. We use these Three Laws to better understand the world around us and therefore they are our conventions. They were not given to us by God. If you look at them you will see that these are simply statements regarding the way things are. The laws of logic are descriptive not prescriptive. These weren't handed to us by God. The universe does not need a creator for these to be true. By arguing this, are you are implying that God is somehow out of the realms of logic himself? Can God make something not be itself? Can God make something the opposite of itself? Can God make something both itself and not itself? An omnipotent God should be able to do these things. (e. g. create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift)Even so, if I were to accept your premise, the main argument you are posing is still "We don't know how these laws came to be so it must be god" If we are going to talk about logic, then it should be mentioned that God of the gaps (or divine fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when 'Goddidit' is invoked to explain natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. I find it ironic that my opponent chooses to bring up morality. Objective morality does not exist. I don't know if you've noticed but often times not everybody can agree on what exactly is moral. A moral dilemma is a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more actions and have moral reasons for choosing each action. Not even Christians would agree on most of these problems. Take this one for example: A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workmen who will be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Molly is on a footbridge over the tracks, in between the approaching trolley and the five workmen. Next to her on this footbridge is a stranger who happens to be very large. If she does nothing the trolley will proceed, causing the deaths of the five workmen. The only way to save the lives of these workmen is to push this stranger off the bridge and onto the tracks below, where his large body will stop the trolley, causing his death. Should Molly push the stranger onto the tracks in order to save the five workmen? So should she? Pushing the stranger onto the tracks might be considered murder. But on the other hand, which is worth more one life or five lives? Morality is not black or white. It's more like a lot of gray. The only kind of morality that exists is subjective morality. Yes, I do realize that this is an extreme example, but the fact that people would answer different ways proves morality is not always clear. While objective morality does not exist, we can as a society agree on certain rules. Take for example murder, we know that it's wrong. But how? Well, as a society we can conclude that murder is not good and has negative consequences. We don't need a God to tell us this. The feeling however of murder being wrong comes from evolutionary pressures. Think about it for a second. How long would a tribe who didn't feel murder was wrong last? The Answer: Not very long. Natural selection made it to where those people died off and societies where murder was wrong therefore prospered. I urge you to look at the site you are on right now. If all of these things were crystal clear there would be no need for debating. We could just ask God for all of the answers. Subjective morality is not dangerous. It simply means that everything is up for debate. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong. (Stoning homosexuals is wrong)I would like to finish this round off with a little side comment. The God of the Bible is not the only God that possesses those traits. From your argument it is impossible to discern your God from the God of Islam or Zeus. Morality is from God in other religions too. (Thank you to DoulosChristos for giving me something to respond to that isn't "It says so in the Bible" or "We're here". While your arguments are still inherently flawed they are at least interesting to respond to. )