the existence of a Christian God

^o^ Nice try pal. Actually I would've rebutted your arguments even more had I had the space. Instead of copying the whole paragraph, I'll just copy the first few lines. "There are over twenty..." - You clearly say worldviews are a collection of ASSUMPTIONS. Assumptions prove nothing. We cannot make facts out of what is not proven, and jumping to conclusions from what we assume is by no means intellectual. What your arguing is OPINION. Also as I said before, a non-belief is not a belief. If there is no proof for something's existence, it is not irrational to think that it doesn't exist. I challenge you to answer me this: Does the invisible, inaudible unicorn exist? Watch my opponent attempt to ignore my challenge. "After a few commentaries..." - I certainly did say why the argument of evil doesn't make sense: It's logical paradox. It's not an argument from lack of imagination. If it is that's like saying if I deny the truthfulness of a Cretan saying "All statements that all Cretans make are lies," or if I deny the existence of a square triangle (A 2d, 3 sided, 4 sided, closed polygon), I make an argument from lack of imagination. 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. Basically, if he says fairies exist, I can just say no they don't and he's the one who has to provide evidence supporting his claim, otherwise I win by default. He tried to pull a fast one and switch the burden of proof before he gives evidence. "But wait! Atheistic assumptions..." - If I'm assuming your god doesn't exist, you're assuming my list of gods don't exist. "Allow me to explain again why morality..." - Nooooo. You keep trying to pull a fast one and mix facts in with opinions. If this god claims to be clearly all good and knowingly creates something clearly evil, there's your contradiction. It doesn't matter if it's something I like or dislike, it's the fact that that doesn't make any sense. Just like your whole air argument, its a logical contradiction. To make matters worse, he deems logical paradoxes as arguments from lack of imagination, a clear mistake. If such a god can create evil, then we can soundly argue the non-existence of oxygen. For the next point: http://en.wikipedia.org... Also you talk about how I aid your argument by saying that atheism cannot appeal to absolute morality. That doesn't mean anything. How does being able to approve to absolute morality prove existence. The invisible, inaudible, unicorn says that killing is right in all situations and feeding others is completely wrong. It appeals to aboslute morality. Under your logic it must prove it's existence. Also, if something doesn't appeal to absolute morality, that doesn't make it invalid. Science doesn't appeal to absolute morality. That doesn't make it invallid. Despite all of this, you forget that this debate not about if the worldviews of the Christian faith are valid, but if the christian god exists. "In the final analysis, atheism cannot..." - Which is why your argument is an argument from ignorance. This is does not serve as proof, but is a mere assumption. First of all, just because atheism doesn't rationally account for these things does not make it invalid or make Christianity valid. You keep implying that the only way we can account for logical laws, scientific principles, objective knowledge, and absolute morals is to rely on christian assumptions (which are unwarranted of course). Your man vs air argument only pertains to this debate if you assume that this exists. Your argument has as much validity as "the invisible pink unicorn made color. You see color all around you, yet you argue against the invisible pink unicorn." Yes there is color, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the invisible pink unicorn exists. Your argument goes "god created logical laws, objective knowledge, scientific principles, and absolute morals. You are using all of these things to promote your argument, yet you argue against the existence of god." The existence of these things don't necessarily mean the Christian god exists. Under your logic any fictional concept that "accounts" for all those things that you said the Christian god made exists, and perhaps their absolute morals are different, then they exist as well. This is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org... "To paraphrase, the proof of the Christian..." Like I said before, just because your beliefs account for the things you deem necessary for an intelligible debate doesn't necessary make it automatically right. Just because something is the only hypothesis does not mean it is factual. As I said before, it doesn't matter if atheism can appeal to the necessary preconditions for an intelligible debate, what matters is if the Christian god exists. You have offered NO proof whatsoever, you simply insist that if your hypothesis for an explaination of our existence is the only one standing, it must be automatically right. This is precisely an argument from ignorance. Until you have proof, then we are not obligated to believe you. Also, why I'm at it, how does this god presuppose logical laws? Without this god, are you saying that there wouldn't be laws? Also, do you lack the imagination to think how we can exist without a creator? Also, how is this science? You keep assuming that your explaination is the only possible one, but give no proof as to why. His proof is as valid as the unicorn analogies I keep listing above. "Lastly, I will address my opponent's question regarding the validity" :) "In these two philosophies, the gods either lack transcendence" - It doesn't matter what they have or lack, what matters is if they exist or not. We're not transcendent or immutable, yet we still exist. As an addition to my argument you clearly say "The Christian God on the other hand transcends the physical universe and he is perfect, thus accounting for the kinds of things necessary to know anything at all." - For something to transcend the physical universe, there is NO physical evidence to prove this in the universe. :) As far as the rest of the paragraph, you basically say that your philosophy is right and theirs is wrong because you're better than them. As I said before, absolute morality or immutable logical laws doesn't pertain to a deity's existence unless you try to affirm the consequent, which is a fallacy and therefore faulty logic. Without empirical evidence, their arguments are just as valid as yours. :) "To summarize this round, my opponent has yet to address my main argument. He has made many assertions and few arguments. However, he has one more opportunity to turn the tables. I open the floor to him and look forward to our final rounds." No my friend it is completely reversed. Your whole argument is based about affirming that the Christian God can account for absolute morality, not whether the god actually exists. A hypothesis is not a fact. This is why I have won this debate. 1) My opponent's argument is an argument from ignorance 2) My opponent's argument affirms the consequent 3) My opponent does not live up to his burden of proof 4) My opponent deems logical paradoxes as arguments from ignorance 5) He gives no physical evidence 6) The existence of god remains unproven :) If he happens to win this debate, it most likely won't be because he had a better debate but because he takes the favored side of the majority. Please put aside your biases and vote for who you think made a more reasonable argument. I urge a CON ballot Thank you :)