The Abrahamic God almost certainly does not exist.

By way of disclaimer, I want to remind the readers that my opponent's Round 1 rules state that my Round 2 is to be used for opening arguments only. Thus, I will not be providing a rebuttal to his opening statements until Round 3.Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG)1Imagine two scholars convening to debate the existence of air. Both sides offer profound arguments and challenging cross-examination over whether or not air is real. Such a debate would be embarrassing for the debater attempting to prove air doesn't exist since its existence is a necessary precondition for him to debate in the first place. He would be a living contradiction whose argument could only be possible if it were wrong. By showing up to the debate, he's already lost.My opponent is like the man arguing against the existence of air. By asserting that God almost certainly doesn't exist, he has undermined his ability to rationalize his position. He has in principle already lost.The proof of God's existence is that, without Him, you cannot prove anything.The Presuppositional Conflict of WorldviewsTAG begins by recognizing that the existence of God is not proven in the same evidential way you might prove the existence of other things. All evidential approaches start from a position of neutrality and then "follow the evidence" to its proper conclusion. The problem is that there is no neutrality. Everyone is bias. We all have presuppositions about reality.The proof of non-neutrality is born out of the problem of infinite regression2. To convince someone of a truth claim, we use other truth claims, which themselves have to be justified, and so on. As finite beings we cannot continue the regression forever and will ultimately stop at a presupposition. As a result, we all hold to a collection of beliefs we consider to be self-evident. This is called our worldview. This worldview becomes the basis by which we interpret the whole of reality.And that's the problem. The existence or non-existence of God fundamentally shapes the whole of reality. As a result, all evidential approaches to proving or disproving God's existence end up begging the question. We examine the evidence for or against God in light of whether or not the existence of God is plausible in the first place. The existence or non-existence of God is a presupposition. This is why both sides can look at the same facts and consider it to be evidence to separate, incompatible premises.So when it comes to proving the existence of God, we have to take a different approach. In this debate, we have two worldviews in conflict. TAG determines which worldview is the most rational by determining which one best accounts3 for the preconditions of human experience. The three main factors of human experience tested are the ones primarily employed in the pursuit of knowledge: logic, science, and morality.My opponent has used all three of these things in this opening round. This shows a commitment on his part—and rightly so—that logic, science, and morality are useful in determining the factuality of things. Surely we take these things for granted in all our debates. But now my opponent can no longer take them for granted because I'm going to ask him to provide an account for logical laws, uniformity of nature, and moral duties from within the atheistic worldview.If atheism cannot account for these things and Christian theism can, then atheism as a worldview ought to be rejected, which will—by implication—also require the rejection of its premise that God does not exist.Laws of LogicSo what gives logic its law-like nature? First, a logical law does not need to be experienced in order to be true. That is, we don't have to test the laws of logic in every conceivable time and place in the universe in order to accept their veracity. Thus, the laws of logic are universal. Second, a logical law is an abstract entity, and as such are immaterial, not to be found as objects in nature. Third, a logical law isn't subject to change or revision else it wouldn't be a law. So, the laws of logic are also invariant.The laws of logic are universal, invariant, and immaterial. Atheism cannot account for the necessary preconditions of these qualities. To say the laws of logic are conventional or sociological is to render them subject to change, and I might as well just revise those laws to suit my needs. To say the laws of logic are found in nature is to make them materialistic, and they lose their law-like character. So, atheists are caught within a philosophical bind. They want to use logic to cross examine theistic claims, yet they cannot account for its law-like nature.The laws of logic make sense within the Christian worldview. The laws of logic reflect the thinking of God. God is immutable, immaterial, and universal, the very qualities necessary to make logic reliable in the pursuit of knowledge.If God does not exist, then we cannot reason with logic.Uniformity of NatureIf there is no uniformity in nature, science would be impossible. So, it must be asked whether or not the atheist can account for the uniformity of nature from within its worldview. On what basis does the atheist rationalize that the future will behave like the past? 18th century philosopher David Hume argued that using past probabilities to answer the question involves circular reasoning since it would involve using the principle of induction to prove the principle of induction4.The Christian worldview on the other hand does account for the uniformity of nature. God created our universe and governs it. God has promised to uphold the universe, and since he is unchanging and true we can account for the universe behaving in the future as it has behaved in the past.If God does not exist, then science is impossible.Moral AbsolutesThis is where we see most inconsistencies within the atheist worldview. The most common objections to Christianity involve an appeal to morality: the problem of evil and suffering, the problem of eternal punishment, the problem of unbelief, and so on. All of these arguments criticize Christianity on the basis that it is an immoral philosophy.To utilize morality in a debate is to take for granted its objective nature. Once again, however, atheism cannot account for moral absolutes. Typically, they say it is a societal convention or a product of evolution, but either response is to render morality subjective, and subjective moral values can hardly constitute proof for an objective claim. To criticize God's behavior according to human preference is to say nothing more than, "God doesn't exist because I don't like Him."In the Christian worldview, God is good and is the standard of goodness. Combined with His unchanging and immaterial nature, we have a rational account for the objective nature of morality. As a result, the only way to criticize Christianity as a moral system is to take for granted the very qualities of morality that only Christianity can provide.If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes.ConclusionAtheism cannot rationally account for logical laws, scientific principles, and absolute morals—the very things my opponent needs to even participate in this debate. He will certainly use these things, but in so doing he abandons atheistic presuppositions. He will be like the man arguing against the existence of air all the while breathing it. He can argue for atheism (or against theism) only if Christianity is true. Therefore, the assertion that God almost certainly does not exist is negated.I turn the floor back to my opponentSources http://www.butler-harris.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...