God Does NOT Exist, God is NOT Great, and Makes Life Worthless

This debate is moving right along, so I'll try to keep the pace. ====> G O D S - E X I S T E N C E <==== :::Argument from the Universe::: Geo's argument here only works if God is defined as a supreme being that created all of existence including himself. I call him Straw God and concede his existence is impossible. However, I can't think of a religion today that postulates such a God. I am defended the Christian God as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith [1], which most accurately reflects the working definition of God I am defending. Given a distinction between all of existence and God's creation, there is no logical incompatibility. Therefore, he has not disproven the existence of God, only of Straw God. :::Kalam's Cosmological Argument FAILS::: P1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause. Geo simply misunderstands the intended premises of the KCA. P1 does not assert that matter and energy has a cause. It asserts that, per our observations, everything we observe began to exist at a point in time. The beginning of matter and energy (if indeed there is one) are dealt with in P2. Furthermore, Geo uses the fallacy of composition: P1: A laptop is composed of matter P2: Matter never began :. The laptop never began P2: The universe began to exist. Understanding P1 correctly, things that exist in time started in time. Whether or not matter and energy always existed is irrelevant to the bigger issue: that time and space began. For example, if matter and energy always existed, something would have to cause that matter and energy to expand into 4 dimensions. Note that Geo did not comment on the Alexander Vilenkin's unifying theory that all expanding universes have a singularity and therefore a beginning. Vilenkin and his colleagues are non-religious physicists that had previously published infinite universe theories. What say ye? :::Ambiguity of the Uncaused Cause::: Of course, proving the KCA by itself doesn't prove that the cause was God, but Geo can't have it both ways. The ambiguity of the uncaused cause favors neither position. Geo is free to offer a dozen alternative causes, but doing so fails to prove God does NOT exist. A rebuttal of an argument FOR God's existence does not prove the opposite. That would be the fallacy of Affirmative Conclusion from Negative Premises. ====> G O D - I S - N O T - G R E A T <==== :::God Can't Be Great::: I fail to see how Geo is exempt from supporting his assertion that "God is not Satan, God is not demons, God is not my opponent, God is not evil, God is not dirt, etc. Unless a Theist is willing to accept that God is a Satanic, evil piece of dirt, then God must be finite." This is ipse dixit, an assertion he has not supported. I suppose it's just another set of attributes of Straw God. :::God is a Tyrannical Dictator::: I wasn't trying to engage in semantics as much as request clarification on the definition of great. Indeed, my point was that, with such an ambiguous term, how can either of us prove greatness or non-greatness meaningfully? Here is Geo's criterion: "if God were [sic] shown to be evil, finite, and tyrannical, he would NOT be 'superior in quality of character,' he would NOT be 'noble,' and he would NOT be 'remarkable or significant.'" Straw God certainly meets Geo's criteria and is therefore not great. God, on the other hand, is by definition infinite, which makes him "remarkable or significant." By Geo's own arbitrary standards, God is indeed great. ====> G O D - D E G R A D E S - L I F E S - S I G N I F I C A N C E <==== Once again, we are met with Geo's arbitrary criterion. Significance, according to Geo, occurs in a life that "is boundless, unrestricted, free to explore, free to give multiple meanings, free to create." Aside from the limits imposed by the laws of physics, I declare that I am boundless, unrestricted, free to explore, free to give multiple meanings, and free to create. I simultaneously believe in God (not Straw God) and assert that he grants me these freedoms. Therefore, I have life-significance. How can Geo hope to prove that my sense of life-significance is false? This is entirely a subjective matter. ====> T A G <==== Looks like Geo successfully defeated Straw TAG. It's a good thing I still have TAG to defend. Perhaps I can help Geo understand the argument in pseudo-syllogism. Here are the assertions I made with a summary of my supporting arguments. Truth is objective - I argued that skepticism is self-refuting Objective truth is obtained via reliable principles such as logic, science, and morality - That's what we're doing in this debate; using these principles to objectively prove or disprove the resolution Logic must be abstract and absolute in order to obtain objective truth - Proved by transcendental argument. For logic to be universal and independently verifiable, these are the necessary preconditions. Nature must be uniform - Proved by transcendental argument. For scientific inquiry to yield objective results, the future must behave like the past. The necessary precondition, therefore, is an ordered universe. Morality must be abstract and absolute in order to place objective moral obligations on outside parties - Proved by transcendental argument. If morality is to be used to disprove God's existence, then it must be a morality that is not subject to human unpredictability. Subjective morality is just mere opinion. The Christian Worldview is the only worldview that accounts for the aforementioned preconditions. Naturalism cannot account for abstract entities. Idealism cannot account for absolute entities. I could go on, but I'll let Geo site the worldview of his choice. In the end, by eliminating worldviews that cannot meet the preconditions necessary for intelligible debate, the Christian Worldview is left standing. Thus, by impossibility of the contrary, the Christian Worldview is true and God exists. That's the argument. It's not circular, but it does reason from the particulars to the universals. That's what a transcendental argument does. Now, I'd like to see Geo defend TAG instead of Straw TAG next round. ====> S O U R C E S <==== 1. http://www.reformed.org...