God Exists

Introduction I thank Con for his thoughtful rebuttals. However, my opponent seems to be trigger happy with claiming the “argument from ignorance” fallacy to attempt to undermine my ability to present rational arguments. The argument from ignorance definition is as follows: “It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false. Or vice versa.” http://en.wikipedia.org...ArgumentsProphecyMy opponent makes a fair request, but I sadly report that I cannot accomplish it. The evidence I gave for Newton's quote is not a direct source, but this does not prove that Newton did not make this claim. Many of Newton's writings are kept in a national library in Jerusalem. Some have been made public, but not all. The reason that they are kept in Jerusalem is because many of the prophecies concern Israel. But I argue the evidence I gave was sufficient; there is no reason for Con to dismiss this. There is no reason to assume my source misrepresented Newton's words.http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... I agree with Con in that should one person make a predictive claim that happens to come true, we should not assume that God exists. Other explanations could be given, such as the psychic phenomenon (although I argue this does not follow to be the most logical choice). However, because the prophets of antiquity are filled with many specific prophecies that have come true, we should notice that these are not isolated events. Also, these are not retrodictions as many skeptics like to claim, and they do so because of the detailed prophecies that became hauntingly accurate. More specifically, the book of Daniel, as claimed by many skeptics, is said to have been written after the events because of said accuracy. http://en.wikipedia.org... The reason I gave only one instance of fulfilled prophecy was to not bombard my opponent with too many prophecies to rebut. I see him as accepting that the Bible does contain prophecies that did become fulfilled, he just does not agree with my assumption that these fulfillments result to the proof of the existence of God. He claims that I made an argument from ignorance, when in reality I made a positive claim that we do know these events have proven Scripture, and that the most logically sound explanation is that they prove the existence of God. P) Many men claimed they had received a revelation from Yahweh, then made claims for a specific prediction for the future.P) These predictions came true.P) Because the claims they made about futuristic events were true, it is likely their claims of receiving testimony from Yahweh were also true. C) The words of Yahweh are reliable. If my opponent wants to argue for another explanation, like psychic phenomena, he must explain how it is more logical to assume so.Consciousness causes collapse.Con: “The argument is refuted”.All Con did was validate my claim- consciousness causes collapse. Even though we can create an apparatus to also cause the collapse, consciousness is still needed to create the apparatus. However, I must admit that he brought new information to the table that I was not aware of, and I applaud his strong case for the retro-causality phenomenon. Now, this does not prove that God couldn't have provided consciousness for the wave functions to collapse before humanity, only that it's theoretically possible that humans are the cause of the collapse. I contend that since we do not know with certainty just how long the effect can predate the cause, neither of us can make an adequate argument for either side. Instead, I will make an argument for what we do know.We are only capable of causing wave functions to collapse with what we can observe, and as our universe is quite vast, one explanation is that God exists to supply the needed wave collapse for the entire universe. I ask my opponent to give an alternate explanation so we can then discuss which option is more likely to be true. Solar eclipses.I did not make an argument from ignorance. I need not involve other planets and moons to validate my claim. My opponent essentially argues that because we don't know how many other planets and moons there are, it must be just a coincidence that our moon is just the right size and distance away and that probably happens elsewhere. This is what actually fits the criteria for an argument from ignorance.Con: “If we didn't have solar eclipses at all” “What if” situations are irrelevant to the topic. The point is that we do have solar eclipses, and as I am on the position that Yahweh exists, my contention is that He created the moon with the purpose for solar eclipses.Since my opponent used a fallacious rebuttal, my argument still stands. The moon appears to be designed, as we can see solar eclipses. I request that my opponent should give a better rebuttal than it just being a mere coincidence. I feel this is a fair request, as if God did design everything, it follows that we would see design in nature. So when an the arguments for "coincidence" or "merely seems designed but isn't" are used, they do not constitute for valid counterarguments, nor are they logically superior to the design argument.RebuttalsThe Problem of ParentsP) If Parents exist, they should be authoritative, wise, and loving.P) If Parents are authoritative, they could set rules for children.P) If Parents are wise, they know children will break those rules.P) If Parents are loving, they will prevent their children from breaking those rules.P) Rules are broken.P) If broken rules exist and Parents exist, then either parents aren't setting rules, they pay no attention to their children, or they do not love their children.C) Therefore, Parents do not exist.I do not see this as any less ridiculous then the argument Con gave. Con may argue this is not a fair parallel to his argument, but I contend that it is. Parents will allow their children to make mistakes because we learn from our mistakes. My opponent seems to not understand that evil is explained away in the first few chapters in the Bible, and that his utopia of a world that he argues should exist if a God exists is what we Christians look forward to on the Last Day. The point is to earn that utopia by maintaining integrity in a world broken because of some of the bad choices humanity is allowed to make due to freewill.Temporal MindsMy opponent again makes an argument from ignorance. He claims that since we know that temporal duration is required for processing, and since we don't know how an atemporal mind would function, then an atemporal mind cannot exist. Con makes his assumptions based on the A theory of time. This argument fails under the B theory of time. http://en.wikipedia.org...Con also assumes that God exists as a being outside of time. Nowhere in Scripture is this claim made. I argue that time has always existed, just like God. Conclusion My opponent is very quick to give alternative explanations to my arguments, but he does not go a step further to validate why his explanations are superior to mine. Should God exist, we would expect to see an ordered universe, and we should be expect that whenever a prophet speaks in Yahweh's name, the words will present themselves as truth. This is what we observe. I ask that my opponent makes predictions based on his worldview and then present observed cases that fit the worldview. I look forward to his challenging rebbuttals.