The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1I

REPOSTING THE LINK ON HOW TO SEE THE TAGS: http://www.debate.org... First, lets get one thing clear on what constitutes as semantics as the insinuation which my opponent is throwing around is not what is generally understood as "semantics" or "playing semantics" on this website. Semantics or playing semantics consist of a contender ignoring an instigators parameters or implied parameters for a debate and arguing beyond said debate's context. In my opponent's second round, he was insisting that I was guilty of this through arguing that I did not uphold his parameters. However, as I managed to demonstrate in the previous round, I have followed my opponents parameters precisely, hence why my opponent is now focused on refuting pantheism (or at least my argument in favor of it) rather than insisting that I've taken part in debate.org taboo. ==================== RE: [b]Which flavor of pantheism is it?[/b] ==================== 1) My argument can apply to any of the 3 flavors of pantheism. This is because we are debating on the existence of said god rather than the merits of any theistic religion (something I clarified in the previous round). In other words, religious groups could very well be wrong about some of the qualities of the pantheistic god, but as long as said god is demonstrated to exist, such misconceptions are irrelevant. 2) Nevertheless, to pacify my opponent, I shall agree to defending naturalistic pantheism, provided it's more along the lines religious naturalism (just t make sure I'm upholding the religious aspect of his parameters) ==================== RE:[b]Error in opponent's syllogism[/b] ==================== In terms of the so-called error in reasoning which my opponent is referring to, this is nothing more than a blatant (blatant because my own words are present in his quote and contradict his words) use of the strawman fallacy. 1) Whatever is responsible for the development of the known universe is to be considered god. 2) Evidence points to the creation of the universe having occurred [b]as an effect from itself[/b] (in other words, created itself, via big bang) 3) Therefore, evidence suggest that the known universe is god Notice the phrase "as an EFFECT from itself." In other words, I'm not saying the big bang created the universe; the process and the state which is effected by said process are CLEARLY NOT being equated. I'm saying that the universe created itself through utilizing the big bang (the event). Ergo, the error which my opponent claimed was present does not exist. ==================== RE: Playing semantics ==================== My opponent quotes the wiki article and claims that pantheism's flaw is an intentional misuse of terminology. However, I would like to point out that this just goes back to the demand which I placed upon my opponent in my first round: Prove that my definition is false (which can be done through showing that there is an objective understanding of god). In doing this, my opponent will have the right to claim that my position is actually misusing any terminology. Until then, it's as I already said: Each definition is no more valid than the other. Going about my opponent's methods, one can easily argue that even if the being which is described as the Christian God exist that it isn't truly a "god", but just a tool of the universe. In addition, as the same wiki article pointed out, I would claim that this intentional misuse of terminology objection is quite feeble as the [i] pan-" prefix modifies the "-theism" suffix to such an extent that pantheism in fact has little to do with traditional theism. [/i] Furthermore, due to my own sleepyness, I'm just going to quote the remainder of the wiki article says verbatim rather than use my own words: "[i]An argument intended to show that the term "pantheism" remains appropriate for the modern, or naturalistic interpretation of pantheism is that the contemporary pantheist sees the term "God" as a synonym for "nature". If nature is equivalent to the theological concept of God, then saying "all is God" (pan-theism) is the same as saying "all is nature". Accordingly, this is the way that many pantheists choose to view the term "pantheism" — all is nature, nature is all. Pantheism, then, is (in this view) essentially a form of spirituality based on nature rather than on supernatural entities such as deities. Accordingly, it is widely accepted that the modern interpretation of pantheism is essentially naturalistic, and therefore constitutes a form of naturalistic spirituality.[/i]" So there you have it. My opponent is free to object to any of what is said in the quote as I shall gladly defend it. ==================== RE: [b]Conclusion[/b] ==================== My opponent's claim that I've made a leap in logic is revealed to be nothing more than the usage of the strawman fallacy on his part. In terms of playing semantics, I ask that you look back to what I've already said on the matter of semantics. I further ask that you note that the only time my opponent has actually argued this (at least with some validity) was in the previous round when he argued that I had ignored his parameters. However, as you can see for yourselves, he has dropped this argument entirely and has argued directly in terms of whether or not pantheism is valid. Anything else which is considered semantics is nothing more than what applicable to any debate. Lets keep in mind that what my opponent is doing is asking you to vote against my arguments based on emotion. At best, I can see how this would work in terms of conduct, but for the other voting categories? I'm afraid this plea is only a request to hold this debate in contempt and vote based on matters that don't concern whether or not actual arguments were refuted. Furthermore, I'm upholding a well established viewpoint. I could ALMOST see if I just pulled something out of the blue (ideas that little to no one thinks of when they see the word "god", which I'd probably be doing had I decided to actually argue in favor of Barack Obama or Peyton Manning being gods), but this is absolutely not the case here. To vote me down just because I'm arguing in favor of this well established viewpoint under the guise that I'm "playing semantics" is absurd and is no virtually no different than voting against someone just because you personally don't agree with their views. In other words, this is nothing more than close mindedness. With all that being said, I stand waiting for my opponent's final round. Later. :D