In this debate I will be trying to disprove the existence of God while my opponent, KRFournier, will try to prove the existence of God. In the first round I will be presenting three points that disprove the existence of God.
GOD: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.(1)
For the sake of argument, I will add three characteristics to the def. of God
1.) He is omnipotent. He has the ability to do whatever he wills and has unlimited power.
2.)He is omnipresent. If he is omnipotent, then if follows that he is omnipresent as well since he has the ability to do whatever he wants.
3.)He is omniscient. Creating everything would require knowing it first; Therefore, God knows everything
Arguments against the existence of God
I) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS EXISTENCE
If you have no evidence to prove something true, then by default it is false. For example, I say I believe in a pink unicorn. If I have no evidence to prove my belief in pink unicorns, then unicorns are not real. But if I do have evidence that pink unicorns are real, then they are real until somebody proves my evidence to be false; now replace pink unicorns with God. I cannot further this argument because it does not require me to present evidence but rather my opponent. I will most happily try to disprove any evidence he has to bring forth though.
II)The paradox of the stone
This is actually a pretty popular argument that ask the question "Can God create a stone that is so heavy he can't lift it?" If he cannot create the stone, then there is something that he can't do and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can create the stone, then there is still something he can't do and he is not omnipotent. Either way God is not omnipotent; Moreover, a being that is not omnipotent is not God. This argument can be generalized to the paradox of omnipotence which states that if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.(2)
III)God cannot be omniscient
The argument can be presented in the following syllogism
P1.)God is omniscient(From def. above)
P2.)God is and always has been omniscient(P1)
P3.)A being's omniscience entails, among other things, that it has all experiential knowledge. (neccessary truth)
P4.)Having all experiential knowledge entails knowing what it is like to learn.(neccessary truth)
P5.)God knows and always has known what it is like to learn.(P2-P4)
P6.) Knowing what it is like to learn entails having learned something.(neccessary truth)
P7.)Having learned something entails that one has gone from a state of not-knowing to a state of knowing. (neccessary truth)
P8.)God has gone from a state of not-knowing to a state of knowing.(P5-P7)
P9.)There was a time when God was in a state of not-knowing. (P8)
P10.) God has not always been omniscient. (from P9)
P11.) God has always been omniscient and has not always been omniscient. (from P2 & P10)
(C) Therefore, God does not exist. (from P1-P11)(3)
The argument simply says that if God is omniscient, then he knows what it is like to learn. However, if he knows what it is like to learn then that means he must have learned something, which entails that he moved from a state of not-knowing to a state of knowing and therefore cannot be omniscient and God cannot exist.
Thanks for reading! This is my first debate and I have to say that I had a lot of fun with it. Thanks also to KRFournier for accepting the challenge and I wish him luck.
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 :
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 , immaterial , and invariant  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 , but he is also limited by his character , 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  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. 
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.
The 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.
- 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
Response to the evidence of God's existence.
I am sorry to admit that after extensive research, but pro is right that the absence of proof is not proof of absence; I guess pink unicorns exist after all. The only good thing I can say is that I did present actual evidence for disproving God instead of just trying to disprove pro's evidence. Pro has also added the extra burden of having me disprove the existence of his God. The good thing is that if you disprove one, it is not very troublesome to disprove the other. Now to start disproving pro's evidence.
Pro's evidence for the existence of his God
(A) Testimonies ranging from miraculous healings today to the eye-witness written about Jesus resurrection. For the sake of argument, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that miracles CAN happen. Now I'm going to show why they are not evidence of a Christian God. If miracles can count as evidence toward a Christian God, then miracles can count toward any worshiped deity. I will now present evidence of miracles of different religions.
I) In [Qur'an 54:1] Muhammad supposing split the moon. This miracle supports Islam.(1)
II)In Volume 4, Book 56, Number 779 of the Qu'ran, Muhammad manipulated water. This was "witnessed" by 1, 400 people, or so the verse claims. This miracle supports Islam too.(2)
III)Honi ha-M'agel stood in a circle until God made it rain which was spectacular because of that rain would come during a drought at the time Honi ha-Ma'agel stood in a circle. This miracle supports Judaism.
(B)Pro claims that Christianity has changed people deeply after submitting to the lord. This is invalid evidence for the same reason the above is, ALL religions have people who claim to make deep changes after converting.
I) I personally underwent many changes after converting from a Jehovah's witness to a Buddhist.(By the way, I am no longer a Buddhist)
II) The following link gives 14 people who changed after converting to Islam. http://answers.yahoo.com...
All these evidences can’t be proof of their religion- their teachings are just too different- yet they all claim to have miracles and life transformations. Pro has been unable to present evidence as to why the Christian God is real and that is even if I do accept his Christian viewpoint of the world.
REFUTING THE TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE (TAG)
I will be arguing the TAG argument with another argument, TANG. TANG is short for Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God and was first presented by Micheal Martin.(4) As stated in (P5-P6) in the TAG argument presented by pro, God is necessary for the principals of logic to exist because it is impossible for the contrary. Also, not only must God exist, but he must have created the principals of logic for it to exist. But if something is created by God, it is not necessary, it is DEPENDENT on God. If the principals of logic are dependent on God, then God could change the principals of logic such as the law of non-contradiction. But if God can do this, then he could make it rain outside and at the same time not make it rain outside. The conclusion is that one must conclude the logic is not dependent on God and that TAG is false. We can say that the laws of logic are dependent on the universe because unlike God, the universe does not have a will and therefore cannot change anything about itself.
Pro says that the laws of Logic are invariant, immaterial, and universal. I disagree with two of these characteristics, that being that Laws of Logic are invariant and universal. The laws of logic are they way they are now because of what we have observed. They are properties of mankind, devised from common sense and observations of nature. But history has shown that conclusions from observations are not always true. An example would be that humans first observed that the earth was not falling and therefore came to conclusion that the earth was resting on a giant turtle. But as our understanding of our world increase, what we observed was not that the earth rest on a turtle, but that it rest on nothing but its own gravity. The conclusion is that the only thing that is invariant is the universe and that the laws of logic are variant and depend entirely on the universe. As for them being universal, they are universal only at the present moment because the laws of logic can be applied to any situation presently. But as soon as they don't become applicable to every situation, then they are not universal until they are changed to become applicable to every situation again(hence why I said they are variable). I accept the laws of logic for the same reason I would accept a scientific theory, they are supported by the universe that we exist in. Pro claims that if I undermine the laws of logic, then neither one of us can come to an objective truth. But instead of using the laws of logic to come to an objective truth, we can use the existence of the universe to create our reasoning which will lead us to an objective truth. So in conclusion, TANG has done two things, (1) Showed that the Christians viewpoint of the world is wrong and that (2) That the universe can be the only thing to account for logic. It did (1) by showing how it is impossible for the laws of logic to depend on God and did (2) by showing that that the universe is responsible for the laws of logic by impossibility of the contrary.
Rebuttal to is God a Contradiction
Pro says that the Christian God is not Omnipotent because he is limited by his character. But his character does not stop him from doing what is illogically possible. This is confirmed about three sentences down in Pro's def. of God when it says "working all things according to the council of His own immutable and most righteous will". So by Pro def. of God, God is Omnipotent as long as it does not contradict any of his defining characteristics. None of God’s characteristics defined by Pro do not allow God to fit the description of the omnipotent being in the paradox of the stone. Since the paradox of the stone argument is still valid, then if follows that the def. of him "working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will" is invalid and therefore the God defined by Pro cannot exist.
My argument can be rewritten as
P1)Omnipotence means doing that which is logically contradictory(by definition)
P2)God is Omnipotent as long as it does not contradict his defining characteristics(by Pro's def)
P3)God can do that which is logically contradictory as long as it does not contradict his defining characteristics(by substitution)
P4)Logically contradictory beings cannot exist
P5)Therefore, God does not exist
As for the Omniscient argument, I do admit that I am a little confused. How can God’s knowledge be infinite yet not omniscient; the terms are interchangeable. If he is omniscient (or if you want to say his knowledge is infinite) than he has experimental knowledge whether it be subjective or not. I agree that experimental knowledge is temporal, but if God is Omniscient or infinitely knowledgeable, then he is not eternal as proved by the Omniscient argument. It is because experimental knowledge is temporal that God is not eternal.
In the last round, pro said that my argument was in the form of an interrogative. If it seems this way, it is only because I am inexperienced with debates and let my excitement of doing this debate override me learning how to do it properly first. I hope I have turned this last round into more of an actual debate instead of just an interrogative.
Defense of TAG
TANG's fundamental error can be summed up in Con's statement, "Also, not only must God exist, but he must have created the principals of logic for it to exist." Unfortunately, this is an egregious misrepresentation of the Christian worldview, as it attempts to view logic as God's offspring. Let's compare this view to the actual Christian worldview:
The first scenario is indeed absurd, and not just for the reasons Con mentioned. Intelligence implies rationality, so the idea of intelligence sans logic creating logic is nonsense. The Christian worldview asserts that rationality is an innate characteristic of God, neither created by God nor existing independently from God. So, yes, logic is dependent upon God insofar as it exists only because God exists, but it is not God's creation. So, TANG fails to eliminate the Christian Worldview as accounting for logic because it has converted it into a straw man.
The second problem with TANG is that it doesn't go all the way. Michael Martin was trying to argue that the logic of TAG could be used to prove the opposite. TAG uses process of elimination to leave the Christian Worldview as the last man standing, so TANG's job should be to leave only Naturalism standing. TANG never argues that Naturalism can account for logic, science, and morality. Thus, TANG is not even an argument for Atheism, just an argument against a form of Christianity that isn't even theologically accurate.
I must give credit to Con, however, that he at least tries to justify logical laws from a naturalistic perspective, which is more than Michael Martin does. Unfortunately for Con, he completely undermines logic in the process. He denies that logic is universal or invariant. In short, he denies that logic is governed by laws and chooses instead to commit to the idea that they are governed by convention. Therefore, by Con's reasoning, there are potentially times and places in the universe in which God "could make it rain outside and at the same time not make it rain outside."
Note the irony of how Con relies on TANG's use of the Law of Non-Contradiction only to reject it as a law in his next paragraph.
Con later says he accepts the laws of logic (note how he still calls them laws after just denying their law-like nature) because they're supported by the universe. How? I'd like Con to be specific. Where does the universe exhibit the Law of Excluded Middles? In matter? In energy? The universe is physical and therefore cannot possibly exhibit such abstract notions. It's like claiming that the universe supports the idea of the number 2. Did we find the number 2 in a rock and then start employing it? Did all the numbers need to be discovered in nature before we could use them? This is a serious epistemological bind for Con and is indicative of the very problems TAG raises about Naturalism in the first place.
The Issue of Evidence
As I anticipated, Con rejects all the evidence I suggested. Con's biggest mistake is that he assumes that evidence is only evidence if it proves something. But that's not the case at all. There are four things to note about evidence:
- Evidence is not in and of itself proof but, rather, support for a premise that is used for proof.
- Evidence can lead to multiple or even conflicting conclusions based on interpretation.
- Evidence comes in degrees of strength, some evidence is weak and some is strong.
- Evidence comes in different kinds, such as reason, experiments, testimony, and experience.
So, my opponent can reject the evidence as being proof of God's existence. I'm okay with that because it doesn't change the fact that there is indeed evidence—no matter how strong or weak—for God's existence despite my opponent's claim that there is no evidence whatsoever.
I should point out, however, that Con should avoid pointing to other religions as alternative explanations of the evidence because he's supposed to be arguing that religions postulating God are false.
Contradictions in the Nature of God
Con's notion of omnipotence is intrinsically impossible because it contains the impossibility within itself. Thus, nothing is omnipotent because such omnipotence is impossible in all circumstances, all worlds, and all agents—including God. Omnipotence has traditionally been understood to mean having the power to do all things that are intrinsically possible. This is the only definition of the word that doesn't reduce it to utter nonsense, which is what the omnipotence paradox is ultimately doing.
The same goes for omniscience. Con's definition is along the lines of, "Omniscience is having all knowledge and not having all knowledge." So be it. If Con wants to employ this nonsense definition, he is free to do so, but I will assert that his definition is not a characteristic of God, or of anything for that matter. Such a definition has no intelligible use whatsoever.
Furthermore, as I tried to argue before, the omniscience argument suffers from equivocation. To say that the experience of learning is itself knowledge is to say an apple is essentially an orange. Experiential knowledge is not objective knowledge. It is, by definition, knowledge that cannot be known by anyone but the agent experiencing it. So, we have two completely different types of knowledge:
- Objective: knowledge that can be known by all agents.
- Subjective: knowledge that can be only known by the agent experiencing it.
In order for omniscience to be an intelligible word, it would have to adhere to the first definition. Lumping experiential knowledge into that definition is to equivocate the above two types of knowledge. Thus, the omniscience paradox fails because it places two contradictory terms into the definition from the start and then reasons in a circle from there.
Both of the paradox arguments might as well read:
- God is floopsyjibbit
- Floopsyjibbit is impossible
- Therefore, God is impossible
As C. S. Lewis once wrote, "nonsense remains nonsense even though we talk it about God." 
My opponent has offered three arguments: no evidence for God, the omnipotence paradox, and the omniscience paradox. His first argument is false because evidence does in fact exist. TAG is rational evidence. Both the paradox arguments fail because they rely on unintelligible definitions.
I have offered one argument: TAG. Con's rebuttal amounts to a straw man argument, and he's even gone so far as to render logic as conventional. Perhaps if we had this debate in a black hole, the laws of logic could be manipulated so that I could win by default. I know my opponent doesn't truly believe logic to be conventional because he is relying on it to prove that I am objectively wrong.
I may have only one argument, but if it holds under scrutiny more so than all three of his arguments, then I have succeeded in fulfilling my burden in this debate.
- Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain, New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996, p. 18.
In order to successfully argue the rest of the debate, I will have to address the omnipotent and omniscient arguments now.
God is still omnipotent and omniscient.
I'm sorry, but I must have missed the part of the def. that says omnipotent is "having the power to do all things that are intrinsically possible". Here's an actual def. "almighty or infinite in power, as God." Where do you read intrinsically possible? Your def. of god does not fit your new made up def. of omnipotent, it fits the original def. used by dictionary.com. I agree with you, the def. is utter nonsense as shown by the paradox of the stone, but that is why God is utter nonsense, his very existence is a contradiction. NOBODY can be omnipotent, but yet your bible says that God can.
And whoa, whoa, whoa, I never said Omniscient is "having all knowledge and not having all knowledge." I only said Omniscient is having all knowledge. Your God by your def. is "infinitely knowledgeable." By substitution, your God is omniscient. Knowing what it is like to learn is objective. Each individual experimental truth you learn may be subjective, but actual experimental knowledge is objective. Every agent knows what it is like to learn. Therefore your God has experimental knowledge and knows what it is like to learn. He has gone from a state of not-knowing to knowing. Now lets take this and make a conclusion. God has not always been Omniscient. But yet you say he is eternal, invariant and universal. You say he has been always been omniscient. But this clearly wrong, God cannot be both omniscient and eternal. When pro argues in the next round, I urge him to use the def. of omnipotent and omniscient that his def. of God matches with. In conclusion, I have shown why God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient as he is described on both dictionary.com and pro’s def and yet be eternal.
Pro says that I commit to the idea that the laws of logic are governed with convention. But everything accepted by men is governed by convention; to say otherwise is to say that absolute truth exists. For if absolute truth doesn't exist, then neither can laws. So why do I say absolute truth doesn't exist? Well here is where the new argument comes in.
The infinite regression problem
The infinite regress problem can be defined as “A causal relationship transmitted through an indefinite number of terms in a series, with no term that begins the causal chain.”(1) Name any known truth and label it (P1). But in order for (P1) to be valid, it has to be backed up by another known truth labeled (P3). (P3) must be backed up by (P4) and (P4) by (PN) where N stretches onto infinity. Basically, the number of questions why to support any truth never ends. And before my opponent says this is absurd, answer me how it is absurd and label your answer (P1). Now take (P1) and back it up by (P2) and so on and so on. So if no absolute truth exists, then everything we accept is governed by convention. The question then becomes, what do we base our laws of logic off of?
What we base our laws of logic off of
As pro argues, we must base our laws of logic of off something invariant and universal if we are to come to an objective truth, basically something eternal. There is only two things that fit this description (1)God and (2) the universe. But wait, God is not eternal, that would mean he is invariant and universal. But the omnipotent and omniscient arguments have both shown that God cannot be invariant and universal. So by process of elimination, we must base our laws of logic off of the universe as we have always done. Men did not base the laws of logic off of God, they based it by observing the environment around them, their universe. Pro says that universe does not exhibit the notions of the laws of logic. Please then make a cup a cup and at the same time not a cup. Please demonstrate how light goes 186K miles per hour and then not 186K miles per hour. Become a dog while you’re still human. Pro ask “Did we find the number 2 in a rock and then start employing it?" No, we found two rocks and then start employing the number 2. I never said that the actual universe has abstract notions, but that rather abstract notions depend on the universe. Abstract ideas by themselves do not exist, they are meaningless. That has to be able to transmogrify-or made real- into the sensory plane. If they are unable to, then they are invalid abstract notions. My conclusion is that the universe and the laws of logic work in tandem, with the latter working dependently on the first. This leads to why TANG is still valid. I have just shown why the laws of logic cannot exist independently. They must be dependent on something eternal if we are to come to an objective truth. And as shown by the mention the omnipotent and omniscient argument, God is not invariant and universal. As for why I still call the laws of logic “laws”, it is because it matches the def. of law. The def. of law is “a body of observations that at the time it is made, has no exceptions that have been found to be a law.”(4). The laws of logic does not contradict this def. and therefore I accept it as a law.
Pro's evidence dismissed
Of course I was going to dismiss pros evidence, if i didn't I would have no basis for my argument. But I didn't show how pro's evidence is wrong from a naturalistic viewpoint, but from a Christian’s viewpoint. Pro has four points that make up the def. of evidence.
1) Evidence comes in degrees of strength. Agreed.
2) Evidence comes in different kinds. Agreed.
3) Evidence is not in and of itself but, rather, support for a premise that is used for proof. Agreed. But wait, Pro's evidence doesn't support his premise. His premise was "A Christian God exist". Let's go with pro's answer for a minute which was yes. This also means that miracles and testimonies support the premise "A Islam God exist" and the premise "A Jewish God exist." But the evidence cannot support all these premises, all the premises are contradictory. One must come to the conclusion then that the evidence presented by pro does not support the conclusion "A Christian God exist". I am not as pro says, pointing to other religions as alternative explanations of evidence but, rather, showing how the evidence is not of any religious deity.
4.)Evidence can lead to multiple or even conflicting conclusions base on interpretation. Agreed, but I didn't argue from a different interpretation, I just showed how your interpretation is wrong.”
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours”- Stephen Roberts.(2) I truly don’t think anybody could have said the conclusion to this argument than Stephen Roberts.
I have shown how God’s existence is a contradiction from the omnipotent and omniscient argument. If we are to accept the laws of logic, we cannot accept God. As a final thought, I thank pro for the chance to argue this in a rational manner and in good conduct. Also I apologize if the argument seems unfinished, but I had to hurry and finish up as I may go without internet due to bad weather in the hours to come. I had fun doing this debate and hope KRFournier did too.
I want to thank my opponent for his participation in this debate, and I pray the Lord keeps him safe during the storms that have been sweeping the Midwest.
Defense of TAG
My opponent's last rebuttal is self-incriminating. Much to my surprise, my opponent actually advocates relative truth. One must ask why he wanted to debate me to begin with. If truth is relative, than I win and he wins. We both win because we are both right. Right?
The idea of relative truth is self-refuting. The statement, "There is no absolute truth" is an absolute truth claim. It can only be true if it is false.
He refers to the infinite regress problem, which incidentally supports TAG. The infinite regress problem is not proof of relative morality, its proof of presupposition. It deals with the nature of knowledge, not of truth itself. Specifically, it is the primary dilemma of the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge.  The infinite regress problem shows that all our knowledge ultimately rests on basic beliefs. In short, the infinite regress problem supports TAG's claim that we all have worldviews.
Finally, Con attributes logic as being a property of the universe but then, in practically the same breath, says that abstract notions are nonsense. Then what are numbers? What are ideas? Is this the direction Con really wants to go?
Also, why didn't my opponent respond to my fancy graphic about the nature of God? That was the cornerstone of TANG. By not responding to that objection (and congratulating me on my mad Photoshopping skills), he has effectively let TANG die.
My opponent has denied the reality of logic, truth, and abstract entities. Yet he argues with me as though there is truth. He uses fallacies against me as though there is logic. He uses paradoxes as though there are abstractions. This is precisely the kinds of internal contradictions that TAG predicts about Atheistic worldviews. They either cannot account for the very things needed to prove God's non-existence or they deny those things as being able to prove God's non-existence.
Either way, he can't prove God's non-existence unless he is wrong and God does in fact exist.
The Issue of Evidence
I don't know where Con is trying to go with this argument. I said I was defending the Christian God because I happen to believe that Christianity is true. That doesn't change the fact that Con has at least some burden to show that no god exists, and his insistence on pointing to other religions doesn't help his case, even if it is damaging to mine.
However, this whole piece of the debate has been irrelevant from the start. I explained the nature of evidence to refute his assertion that there is no evidence for Christianity whatsoever. Yet he continues to insist as much without explaining why. My opponent simply does not understand what evidence is, nor does he understand that a lack of evidence for Christianity is still not a positive case for Atheism.
Contradictions in the Nature of God
My opponent is understandably frustrated with my rebuttal to the omnipotence paradox. He wonders how I justify calling it intrinsically impossible. Con said in round 1, "If he cannot create the stone, then there is something that he can't do and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can create the stone, then there is still something he can't do and he is not omnipotent." In these two sentences, he states that whatever cannot both lift the rock and not lift the rock is not omnipotent. Those two sentences define omnipotence as doing that which is intrinsically impossible.
He then does an about face and agrees that the term is nonsense and insists that God is nonsense for the same reason. He admits to the term's nonsense: a term which is the foundation of his argument. He has effectively—though perhaps unwittingly—confessed to circular reasoning.
Furthermore, my opponent was never justified in applying this understanding of omnipotence to the God of the Bible. I was very clear, with scriptural references, that God is portrayed as being both almighty and limited by his character. Con tried to show that this was not the case, but he never showed us in Scripture. Since Scripture is the source by which we define the Christian God, it was incumbent upon him to convince us that the Bible attributes this hyper-literal treatment of omnipotence to God.
As for omniscience, I am glad to submit to my opponent's request to use my earlier definition of "infinite knowledge." That is what the Bible teaches. But to insist that infinite knowledge includes the very contradictory notion of experiential knowledge is to render infinite knowledge as meaningless. So, the problem of circular reasoning persists.
I think I argued quite clearly why experiential knowledge is not equivalent to objective knowledge and how lumping them together was to render omniscience nonsensical. Note how he didn't address my argument at all. He simply repeats is original argument about God's omniscience and accuses me of not relying on the dictionary.
Unfortunately, Con fails to realize that his arguments rely on twisting those very same dictionary definitions to suit his needs.
My opponent has struggled to keep his arguments focused and clear throughout this debate. The deeper into this issues we got, the more incongruous he became. By the end of the debate, he even rendered truth itself meaningless.
I ask the readers to weight this against my case. I have shown how the paradox arguments engage in circular reasoning, and I have shown how his no-evidence argument does not prove Atheism. I have provided a strong positive proof in the form of TAG. He tried to refute with TANG, but then let it slip through the cracks in the end.
On balance, I think the readers are justified in recognizing my position as being better supported. Regardless of the outcome, I thank both IFLYIGH and the readers for their time and consideration.