Does God exist ? (part 2)

Debate Parameters I didn't realize how strictly Con would use the term "prove." So be it, he doesn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't think I ever took that position myself. My point is, he said he would "present arguments that Gods [sic] non existence [sic] is more likely that its existence." So, I expected him to offer more than one very weak argument. But, what's done is done. Defense of KCA A non personal first cause (or as pro likes to call it the mechanical universe factory) I understand quite well that Con is arguing for a non-personal first cause, and I've clearly reduced that argument to absurdity. I am not intentionally trying to create confusion. I defined universe in my last round as "a realm in which something exists or takes place." [1] An effect can itself be the creation of a universe even if the cause came from another realm. I'm using definitions here. I cannot help it if my opponent is confused. Countering the premise that all eternal causes MUST be personal An impersonal eternal first cause must not have a finite amount of things because it begs this question: what caused the first thing? If that entity is truly impersonal and has no will of its own, then there are two possibilities. First, the first thing was caused by an external entity, which clearly makes this entity not the first cause. The second possibility is the first thing was caused internally, but this option has its own problems. This mechanical universe produces no effects for eternity past and suddenly has a first effect? This is logically absurd unless the entity had some kind of will of its own. As best as I can tell, Con is getting caught up in semantics and confusing the terms temporal and eternal. He's making this argument more difficult than it actually is. Let me try to break it down. P1. An eternal entity does not change. P2. A mechanical entity that does a finite number of things did so because it changed. C1. Therefore, a mechanical universe that does a finite number of things is not eternal. An eternal non-personal entity cannot change. It must either be doing the same thing perpetually or it must be doing nothing. If it is doing nothing, it will cause nothing. If it is perpetual, it must have been designed, which again eliminates it as a possible first cause. Thus, the first cause must be eternal and it must have a mind. I have no problem accepting that God is the eternal first cause because he can do something—such as create our universe—without changing. Non personal first cause vs Personal first cause with free will I am not engaging in special pleading as I am not asking for an exception to my rules. When I speak of change, I speak of change in the properties of the entity. A non-personal eternal entity requires a change in its properties in order to be a cause. For example, a dead entity must change into an active one in order to do something, which necessitates cause. A perpetual entity does not require change in its properties, but then it necessitates a designer. God's properties do not change when he exercises his free will and engages his mind, for his ability to make choices and execute them are fixed properties. The causes a change in the sense that a universe that was not there is there now, but it is not a change in his existence, only a change in existence as a whole. Said another way, we can think of two entities. God and God-Plus-Everything-Else. When God created, God did not change even though God-Plus-Everything-Else did change. In impersonal entity, on the other hand, must require a change within itself to achieve the same effect. My rebuttal to Con's first syllogism is that his second premise is false due to the fallacy of equivocation. He is equivocating a free will (the ability to make choices) with the changes that occur because of those choices. The will does not change when one makes a choice. When I eat eggs for breakfast, I change the state of the universe, but my free agency is the same both before and after my decision to eat eggs for breakfast. Furthermore, the first premise in both syllogisms is a straw man. It leaves out so much of what I've argued. An effect requires change to the properties of the entity that caused it if it has no will. That's the premise I've meticulously argued for. When used as the first premise in both of Con's syllogisms, then both of his conclusions become non sequitur. The First cause and Occam's razor Occam's razor actually supports a personal first cause. An impersonal eternal first cause, if it is isn't dead, is a perpetual machine without a will. All mindless machines have properties of engineering. Thus, you have to assume the perfect design without a designer. God requires no designer because he is spirit (per my definition at the start). Any attempt to classify God as requiring design would lead fallacious reasoning, but I'll let me opponent object to this assertion. The question is, which is more parsimonious? A self-existent machine or a self-existent spirit? Defense of TAG TAG argues from worldviews. All people ultimately rely on some unproven assumption about reality, which is due to the problem of infinite regression when justifying knowledge. The sum of those presuppositions is called a worldview. Instead of deducing the existence of God, which will ultimately rely on competing presuppositions about what can and cannot be true, TAG simply sets out to determine which worldview is more likely true than the rest. That's why I am giving Con the opportunity to offer a worldview he thinks meets all three criteria or why the Christian worldview does not. To be absolute means to be objective and universally applicable to all beings, as opposed to subjective or arbitrary. For example, when Person A argues that Person B is engaging in a logical fallacy, he is presupposing that the logical laws that apply Person A apply equally to Person B. To that end, I will answer Con's questions. 1) TAG does not care about other existences. It argues from our experience. Logic applies to our existence as evidenced in our debating. If we did not believe logic applied to all people, we would not bother arguing. 2) Logic does not apply to God in the sense that he is dependent upon it. God is a presupposition of the Christian worldview, and his quality is that of a perfectly rational being. Therefore, logic is a property of God. 3) I suppose logic does not apply where there is no objective truth or no rational minds to employ them. To be abstract means to be intangible in nature [2] and, more specifically, to be the product of thought. Logic would not exist without the mind, and to maintain the property of being absolute, it requires a single, universal, immutable mind behind it. Conclusion Con has managed to escape offering any further arguments in favor of his position and has instead elected to supply one argument that only marginally works if he can tear down mine. I assert that he has yet to do so. He continues to get mired down in terminologies and concepts. I have shown his attempts at refuting KCA to be wanting, as he engages in misinterpretations of my arguments and fallacies of equivocation. He hasn't really refuted TAG yet, as it still seems to elude him. I think it is fair to say I am still in the lead in fulfilling the burden's Con set forth. Sources 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...