Does God Exist

Thank you, IFLYHIGH, for the opportunity to discuss this matter.Who is God?I will be defending the existence of God the Father of Jesus Christ. I cannot accept Con's definition of God, for—as I will argue—it is not representative of Christian Theology. God is far more complex than to be described in three rather dubious words, so I will use the Westminster Confession of faith [1]:There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.Does God Exist?I will begin with my argument for God's existence. This is commonly known as the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG):P1. Con uses logic to objectively argue against God's existence. (By observation)P2. Logic is objective. (By necessity)P3. Logic is governed by the Laws of Logic. (By definition)P4. Laws are abstract and universal. (By transcendental necessity)P5. Only God can account for abstract entities. (By impossibility of the contrary)P6. Only God can account for universal entities. (By impossibility of the contrary)P7. Only God can account for Laws. (P4-P6)P8. Only God can account for Logic. (P3 & P7)P9. Logic can only be objective if God exists. (P2 & P8)P10. Con's arguments can only be objectively true if God exists. (P1 & P9)P11. If Con's arguments are true, then they must be false. (P10)C. Therefore, God's non-existence is self-refuting and God exists. (P1-P11)The proof of God's existence is that, without Him, you cannot logically prove anything.Con and I both have competing presuppositions about reality. Those presuppositions make up our worldview, and our worldviews determine what we accept as possible. Thus, we both enter this debate with bias. I am bias toward the Christian worldview and my opponent is bias towards naturalism.TAG takes these competing presuppositions and determines which set better accounts for human experience. In this case, TAG determines which worldview can account for logic.The laws of Logic are invariant, immaterial, and universal. If my opponent insists that they are less than this, then he loses their law-like nature and neither of us can rely on logic to reach objective truth. If, however, he agrees that laws have these qualities, then he is in the sticky position of having to account for invariant, immaterial, and universal entities in a naturalistic worldview. I'll let my opponent choose how to deal with this dilemma.The Christian worldview, on the other hand, presupposes a universal [2], immaterial [3], and invariant [4] God. In fact, the laws of logic are reflections of His rational mind. Thus, the Christian worldview does not internally contradict itself—as does naturalism—when appealing to logic to attain objective truth.Is There Evidence of God's Existence?My opponent starts his argumentation with the absurdity that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If there is, indeed, no evidence for God's existence, that only proves that his existence is unknown, not false. Thus, his first argument does not prove anything in his favor.Nevertheless, there is evidence of God's existence. There are numerous testimonies ranging from miraculous healings today to the eye-witness written testimonies of Jesus' resurrection. I personally know dozens of people who've experience deep changes in character after submitting to the lordship of Jesus Christ.Of course, my opponent will reject these evidences, and in so doing, he will undermine his entire case here. The truth of the matter is my opponent's worldview does not permit any evidence of a supernatural nature because his worldview already presupposes its impossibility. It's not that there isn't any evidence; it's really that there isn't any evidence that my opponent accepts.Is God a Contradiction?My opponent's next argument commits circular reasoning. The definition of omnipotence is defined as a paradox to begin with. His Stone Paradox is really just arguing that omnipotence—as Con defined it—is a contradiction. His argument can be logically written as follows:P1. Omnipotence means doing that which is logically contradictory. (By definition)P2. God is omnipotent. (By definition)P3. God can do that which is logically contradictory. (By substitution)P4. Logically contradictory beings cannot exist.C. Therefore, God does not exist. (P3 & P4)Such a definition of omnipotence does not represent God. The Bible explicitly states that he is almighty [5], but he is also limited by his character [6], e.g. God cannot lie, commit evil, etc. Thus, Con's argument refutes the existence of some god, but it does not refute the existence of God.Con's third argument also reasons in a circle, only this time, the paradox in the definition of omniscience stems from an equivocation of concepts: namely human experiential knowledge and God's infinite [7] knowledge. Built into the term is the notion that experiential knowledge is objective and universal. But this is misleading, for all experiential knowledge—though sometimes confirmed by objective knowledge—is itself subjective knowledge. Furthermore, all experiential knowledge is temporal, whereas God is eternal. [8]So, premise one should be written, "God has all knowledge, even that which makes him a logical impossibility," if you accept Con's loaded definition in the first place.This is why I refused to accept Con's description of God in his opening statement, for they serve to establish a straw man argument in his favor.ConclusionThe resolution is in the form of an interrogative, so it seems we both share burden of proof. The winner of this debate therefore ought to be the one who—on balance—was the better arguer.Sources http://www.reformed.org... Exo. 3:14 Deu. 4:25; Joh. 4:24; Luk. 24:39 Jam. 1:17; Mal. 3:6 Gen 17:1; Rev 4:8 Num. 23:19; 1Sa. 15:29; Rom. 3:4; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18 Rom. 11:33; Psa. 147:5 Psa. 90:2; 1Ti. 1:17