The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Does God exist ? (part 2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,054 times Debate No: 15797
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE ACCEPTING DEBATE

BURDEN OF PROOF

Both sides of this debate have a burden to carry

I as the CON will present arguments that Gods non existence is more likely that its existence.

My opponent as the PRO will present arguments that Gods existence is more likely than its non existence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the PRO

You can argue for a more general theistic position or a more specific theistic position, eg Christianity, Islam, etc, its up too you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPECTATIONS

It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round 5

Round 5 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 5, only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFINITIONS

Definition of God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPENING ARGUMENTS.......

Contention 1) There are more things that don't exist than do exist.

Image all the things we could come up with and argue that they exist..... blue elephants, gremlins, witches, inter dimensional aliens, invisible rocks, particles that travel backwards in time etc. We would need a super computer to come up with all the possible things that could exist, and 99.9%+ of them, don't exist, never have and never will.

If a claim is made that X exists, and we have no other information other than the claim that it exists, there is a 99.9%+ chance that it doesn't exist, and yes that number is just made up by myself but I think you get the point.

Seeing Pro is the one arguing that God exists, I shall leave it up to them to provide their reasons, until then, most possible things don't exist and as such we can be confident in the absence of any reason to the contrary that Gods non existence is more likely than Gods existence.

I look forward to Pros response.
KRFournier

Pro

I accept Illegalcombatant's terms for the debate and hope to do this debate justice.

Introduction

Per Con's parameters, I am permitted to argue for any theistic position. I will be arguing for the existence of the Christian God. I therefore submit the following, more complete description of God quoted from 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.


I realize the definition I put forth is long-winded, but it's a more complete depiction of the God Christians profess. I do this for the benefit of both myself and my opponent. It would be unfair to Con for me to accept his starting definition only to add to it later in the debate.

Evidential Argument for God's Existence.

I have a two arguments—one logical and one evidential, but since we have five whole rounds, I'll start with my evidential argument, which is a modified form of Kalam's Cosmological Argument (KCA). This evidential argument is meant to show that it is more rational to accept Christianity as true than otherwise. Any argument for God's existence can be doubted; I simply ask the readers to determine whether any doubts my opponent may offer are reasonable or irrational.

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

We have yet to acquire conclusive proof of entities entering into existence without cause. The Causal Principle is rooted in our everyday experiences and cannot be conveniently ignored. I warn my opponent that appealing to matter or energy as contrary evidence is question begging.

P2. The universe began to exist.

It is certain the universe is continually expanding from a singularity. [2] Alexander Vilenkin developed a unifying theory [3] in 2003 with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth. This theory, which is independent of our universe, shows that all expanding universes must have a singularity and therefore a beginning.

An actual infinite number of things is impossible. Therefore, there is a finite number of events in our cosmos' timeline. Thus, it is rational to conclude that it a first event, or a beginning.

C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

If whatever begins to exist has a cause (P1) and the universe began to exist (P2), then the universe has a cause.

P3. The first cause must be eternal.

There are two choices for the cause of this universe: another temporal existence or an eternal one. If it is temporal, it also has a beginning (per C1). Since there cannot be an actual number of temporal universes, we must conclude that eventually, there is an eternal cause.

P4. All eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal.

An eternal cause would be one of two things: teleological (personal/intelligent) or non-teleological (mechanical). An eternal object MUST be in equilibrium; it is logically contradictory to assert an eternal object that is changing. Thus, a mechanical eternal entity is dead and there incapable of causing anything, much less the temporal effects of space-time as we know it.

A teleological eternal agent on the other hand implies an agent with a will. It is logically possible for an eternal personal agent to freely choose to create effects in time without necessitating change in its own properties. So, by process of elimination, we can conclude that any eternal cause of a temporal effect must be intelligent.

C2. The universe was caused by a personal creator.

If the universe has a cause (C1), and the cause must be eternal (P3), then the universe has an eternal cause. If the universe has an eternal cause and all eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal (P4), then the universe must have been caused by a personal agent.

P5. Given a personal creator, miracles are logically possible.

It is logically permissible for the personal creator to intervene in our universe to cause events that defy the normal constraints of the universe, what we would call miracles. One need not believe in miracles to see that this is logical possibility.

P6. The personal creator probably intervened in this universe by resurrecting Christ

Given the historical reliability of the Bible [4], we can conclude that the stories regarding Jesus Christ are testimonies of real witnesses. Given the validity of miracles (P5) and the testimony of so many witnesses, it is parsimonious to accept that the Gospel accounts are probably describing a real event.

C3. The personal creator of this universe is probably the Christian God.

If the personal creator can intervene in the form of miracles (P5) and the miracle of the Resurrection probably occurred (P6), then the Bible is probably the revelation of this universe's personal creator. In which case, the creator of this universe is probably the Christian God.

Rebuttal to Con's Contention 1

Careful examination of Con's first contention reveals that it is simply a restating of the general skepticism one should have when faced with any unsupported claim. His right to say that any claim, if unsupported, is unlikely to be true. Since I am now providing such support, this makes his first contention moot until that time that he is able to show all my arguments to be utterly lacking. At any rate, I do not see how this is an argument for Con's position as much as an argument against mine. Per his own rules, he is to argue positively for his position, not merely negatively against mine.

Conclusion

So far, we have general opening statements, so there is not much to summarize. My first argument should show that it is more rational to accept Christianity as true than to not. In my next round, I will offer a logical argument that will show Christianity as necessarily true. So far, Con's burden is somewhat lacking, but I think it is prudent that the readers not hold that against him until he has had opportunity to offer more evidence in his next round.

Sources

1. http://www.reformed.org...
2. http://skyserver.sdss.org...
3. http://books.google.com...
4. http://www.leaderu.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their quick response.

Before I get into the more substance of this debate I'd like to get a few things out of the way first.

--- Westminster confession ---

The westminster confession..........correct me if im wrong here, but the westminister confession doesn't contradict my definition of God I gave does it ? Assuming it doesn't lets move on.......

--- Raising the bar too high & Possibly shifting the burden ? ---

Pro says "until that time that he is able to show all my arguments to be utterly lacking"

No I don't need to show that all your arguments are utterly lacking, I just need to show that they should not be accepted.

Pro says "So far, Con's burden is somewhat lacking, but I think it is prudent that the readers not hold that against him until he has had opportunity to offer more evidence in his next round"

I am not too sure what he means here, if he means I need to give evidence/reason why his conclusion that Gods' existence is more likely than its non existence should be rejected, then yes obviously, thats kinda the whole point of the debate. If pro is saying that I need to provide evidence that proves God does not exist, I would merely retort, I will do that, when you provide evidence that invisible flying immaterial unicorns don't exist on pluto and until you do be confident in the existence of these unicorns.

Oh its irrational to demand lack of evidence of somethings non existence as some how supporting the existence of that something?.........exactly.

I ask Pro to clarify what he meant, and till then give them the benefit of the doubt, that they were merely pointing out that I need to show why there argument should be rejected.

--- A caused universe doesn't necessarily means it was caused by another temporal universe ---

Now Pro isn't going to argue this point, cause obviously they are arguing that God (who isn't a universe) caused a universe.

So what is my point here ? My point is in relation to what Pro says here "There are two choices for the cause of this universe: another temporal existence or an eternal one. If it is temporal, it also has a beginning (per C1). Since there cannot be an actual number of temporal universes"

Its the last line of this argument thats I challenge.... "Since there cannot be an actual number of temporal universes""

The hidden assumption is that a caused universe can ONLY come from another temporal universe, but why can't a temporal universe come from a temporal cause, but that temporal cause is not its self a universe ?

Please note - I am not challenging the infinite regress argument here, I could agree that there is not an infinite regress of causation, but that doesn't prove that a universe can't have a temporal cause, and that temporal cause is not a universe.

--- Seeking clarification on eternal objects ---

Before I argue against this point, I want to be sure what Pros argument is. I don't want to guess what it is, so I am just going to ask.

Pro says "An eternal object MUST be in equilibrium; it is logically contradictory to assert an eternal object that is changing."

Why must an eternal object be in equilibrium ?

Why can't an eternal object change ?

--- Countering that God personal ---

I will probably want to come back to this, but part of my counter argument is based on how Pro justifies the rejection of a non personal eternal cause.

--- Countering that the universe was caused by a personal creator ---

Even if there is a first cause, it hasn't be established that it is personal, and it hasn't even being established that a first caused, directly caused our universe.

--- Given a personal creator, miracles are logically possible ---

Personal creator not established, and even if it was, possibility doesn't mean actuality. Its possible that there are invisible immaterial fairies in my back yard plotting the over throw of mankind.............sure its possible, but possibility isn't enough to have justification for believing so, espically when it comes to extraordinarily miracle (magical) claims.

--- Countering the bible is historical accurate ---

I should note, the debate is on Gods existence, Pro didn't have to argue for the Bible, Jesus etc, never the less, they are the ones who decided to use it as part of their argument.

So is God creating 2 humans from which all other human beings are descended from is historical accurate ?
God creating said these 2 humans about 6000 years is historical accurate ?
God putting them in a garden, which among other things contain two "special" trees, and a talking serpent is historical accurate ?

A global flood, which happened a bit later on, all people and animals that exist today are descended from this ark survivors , historical accurate ?

And I am not even out of Genesis yet.............

You sure you want to go down this path ?

I think its a bit unfair to just post a link, cause I don't know which parts of the article are part of your argument, and also if using the link allows you to go over the word limit ? But anyway from this link, just because people believe in God, doesn't prove God, and just because people were really really careful about copying various documents doesn't prove that those events are historical accurate.

---Countering "it is parsimonious to accept that the Gospel accounts are probably describing a real event." ---

No, its parsimonious that the gospel contains both fact and fiction, and that micralous claims are probably false.

I look forward to Pros response.
KRFournier

Pro

I appreciate my opponent's rapid response.

Debate Parameters

My opponent is reading too much into my rebuttal. I refuted his first contention by showing that it's not an argument for his position. I am not being disingenuous in asking him for an argument in favor of his position. After all, he was the one that insisted both sides have burden of proof. So, where is his proof? I simply reminded the readers so he wouldn't get away with leaving us empty handed, which he has so far done.

Defense of KCA

A caused universe doesn't necessarily means it was caused by another temporal universe

There are no hidden assumptions, just a misunderstanding on my opponent's part. If the cause of this universe is indeed a temporal one, it need not be a universe itself. However, it stands to reason that the cause would occur from within one. Indeed, where else would a temporal cause exist if not within some universe. Note that, by universe, I simply mean some unit of existence. We live in a universe we call the cosmos. If a temporal cause outside of our universe is responsible for creating this universe, then it must be within a temporal existence that we can simply call, "some other universe." And if that existence is temporal, it had a cause, and so on.

Seeking clarification on eternal objects

If an existence has causes and effects, it is not eternal because--as I already stated--you cannot have an actual infinite of things. Time is, by definition, a series of cause/effects. Therefore, timeless existence that is mechanical (like a perpetual universe creating machine) would consist of an actual infinite number of causes and effects, which is impossible. If, on the other hand, a mechanical universe does not change, it is dead. It does nothing. It can't choose to do something, for it is mindless. Either way, a mechanical eternity is not a logical option. That leaves us with a personal agent.

God, however, is eternally unchanging (per my definition). He is fixed. He does not consist of an actual infinite number of causes and effects. He just is. He does not change when he chooses to create a temporal existence.

Given a personal creator, miracles are logically possible

Yes, possibility does not mean actuality. Premise 5 doesn't argue for actuality, premise 6 does. The point is, once I've established the evidential necessity for a personal creator, then miracles can no longer be rejected on the grounds of being impossible. I simply establish that it's logically permissible so I can follow it with the historicity of the Gospels.

Countering the bible is historical accurate

My opponent may criticize Genesis until he's blue in the face, but that's not my argument. I am focusing on the historical likelihood that the resurrection was a real event. If the resurrection happened, then Jesus--who asserted that Genesis was accurate--was telling the truth. It's as simple as that.

I agree that the link was a bit unfair, but I was running out of space. It goes like this: the Bible has great credentials over and above any other ancient document. Historians accept Plato's writings as being his actual writings, and there are far fewer available manuscripts than what's available for the Old and New Testaments. Furthermore, non-Biblical writers such as Josephus have verified several events depicted in the Gospels. Thus, from a historical perspective, it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospels are really the accouts of people claiming to have witnessed the resurrection of Christ.

The question then becomes, were these people deluded or lying about what they saw. Unfortunately, it requires many more assumptions to argue that the resurrection was faked or fabricated than it does to accept that the event was real. Therefore, it is more parsimonious to accept the resurrection.

Now, that being said, I'm not going to sweat it if my opponent disagrees here. Even if the readers aren't convinced that the resurrection occurred, I've still got the argument for a personal creator, which is enough to support my position. Furthermore, I have my next argument.

Logical Argument for God's Existence

I will now take this opportunity to make my second argument, the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG).

The argument begins with the premise that truth is objective. Truth, being that which affirms reality as it is, is the desired goal of academic pursuit. Debate falls within this pursuit, and it stands to reasons that, if debate is not seeking objective truth, then it is a vain endeavor. For this reason, strong agnosticism and other forms of skepticism are refuted at the outset on the basis that they are self-refuting and lead to absurdity. The claim that truth is not objective is itself an objective truth claim and can only be true if it is false.

To obtain objective truth, academic pursuit relies on the principle that logical reasoning, scientific induction, and moral obligation are all capable of attaining objective truth. In order to do so, these principles, which are often taken for granted, must be abstract and absolute, as anything else reduces to absurdity. If logical reasoning is conventional, then it cannot affirm anything more than conventional knowledge. If nature is not uniform, then science cannot affirm anything more than present observations. If morality is subjective, then it cannot affirm anything more than ethical suggestions. In short, unless these principles are universally binding and abstractly independent from human thought, all debate philosophically leads to utter skepticism.

So, for debate to be intelligible, logic must be necessarily true, the universe must be uniform, and morality must be universally binding. TAG asserts that God (as defined herein) is the necessary precondition for these principles, and is proved via the impossibility of the contrary. This God is the only precondition that can justify immutable logic, uniformity in nature, and moral objectivity, for He is perfectly true, immutable, transcendent, righteous, holy, infinite, and so forth. Without Him, these principles cannot exist in the state in which debate requires them. That is to say, without God, logic becomes conventional, scientific induction becomes unreliable, and morality becomes mere opinion, which brings us back to the problem described in the preceding paragraph.

The result is that any debater attempting to disprove God ultimately relies on principles that can only be justified if his/her position is wrong. To say it very succinctly, God exists because without His existence it is impossible to know anything.

Conclusion

I've offered two argument for God's existence. The first is evidential. It is not absolute proof, and not meant to be. It is evidence that should be compared with Con's evidence. If my evidence is more reasonable, then it should be in my favor. So far, my opponent has not offered evidence for his position, which he obligated himself to supply. My second argument is logical. It shows that God is the necessary precondition for everything my opponent would hope to use to prove me wrong. These two arguments, in combination, make a much stronger case than my opponent's. I sincerely hope he provides his own arguments in his next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for once again their fast response. Looks like we are both online at the same time so are getting though this quicker than normal.

--- Pro might be trying to shift the burden ---

I already agreed, that I have to show why your arguments should not be accepted. You also agreed that my first contention that just because things are possible doesn't make them actual was well as agreeing that there are more things that could exist but don't, than do exist, and by more we mean over 99% that are possible to exist, but don't exist.

Previously I asked you a question, and you just avoided it so I am going to ask directly and I expect a direct answer. My question is in relation to where you say " After all, he was the one that insisted both sides have burden of proof. So, where is his proof? I simply reminded the readers so he wouldn't get away with leaving us empty handed, which he has so far done."

Are you saying I have to prove Gods non existence ? I am looking for a direct yes or no answer here.

--- So what is a universe anyway ? ---

According to Pro ". Note that, by universe, I simply mean some unit of existence" I am not too sure why I find this amusing, I just do.

--- Countering that the first cause must be personal ---

Pro claims that "All eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal."

In order to justify a personal eternal cause Pro has sought to prove that a eternal non personal cause is impossible. I don't think he has done so. Take for instance where Pro says "Therefore, timeless existence that is mechanical (like a perpetual universe creating machine) would consist of an actual infinite number of causes and effects, which is impossible."

If its true that there can't be an actual infinite of effects, this just means that an eternal non personal cause can create a finite amount things, or a potential infinite of things. (Yes I said potential infinite for those who understand the difference between actual infinities and potential infinities)

Well if you have a timeless cause that can produces finite effects, so can I.

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. [1]

Pro is committing a false dilemma because Pros argument is.......

1) The eternal cause is either a non personal cause producing an infinite amount (Pros eternal universe factory) or a personal eternal cause that produces a finite amount (Pros Personal God)
2) The eternal cause is not a non personal cause producing an infinite amount
3) Therefore the eternal cause is personal

But what about a non personal cause that produces a finite amount or a potential infinite amount ?

Why can't an eternal cause produce a finite amount of things ? I don't see any valid reason for rejecting this, thus its still an option on the table. This refutes the claim that an eternal cause MUST be personal.

Pro says " If, on the other hand, a mechanical universe does not change, it is dead. It does nothing"

I don't understand this repeated it is dead claim, It sounds like Pro is arguing that if something is dead, that is to say it is not a personal cause, it can't produce any effect........I think gravity may beg to differ.

--- Does God have a cause ? ---

Pro says "If an existence has causes and effects, it is not eternal because--as I already stated--you cannot have an actual infinite of things."

Pro argues that existence is made up of an timeless personal cause, who creates finite things (eg our universe).

--- The argument that God is not eternal ---

1) God exists and thus is part of existence (Pro is arguing that God exists after all)
2) If existence has causes and effects, its not eternal (According to Pro)
4) God is a cause
3) Therefore God is not eternal

--- The argument that God does not create anything---

1) God does not change (According to Pro)
2) Things that do not change, do not produce anything (This is one of the reasons Pro gives for rejecting a non personal eternal cause)
3) Therefore God does not produce anything

--- Causation/time and timeless causes ---

Claiming that a timeless personal God is problematic for so many reasons, here is one of them.

As Pro says "Time is, by definition, a series of cause/effects"

God can't be a timeless cause argument......

1) Time is, by definition, a series of cause/effects (According to Pro)
2) God is part of a series of cause/effect (Claimed by Pro, as the universe is the effect and God is the cause)
3) Therefore God is in time
4) Therefore God is not timeless

--- Countering the bible is historically accurate ---

Pro takes offense to my questions are the claims in the bible historically accurate, in thiscase genesis. I asked about claims in Genesis cause that is the first book, don't worry there are 65 more books to ask about various historical claims too. Yet pro was the one who claims the bible is historically accurate. I am no historian, but in order for something to be historically accurate doesn't the event that is claimed to have happened actually has to have happened ?

Pro got of this topic real quick, accuse me of attacking genesis, then changes his argument. Well now he is arguing that some new testament claims are historically accurate. Remember pro you said the bible is historically accurate.

Which brings me to my charge that Pro is committing a logically fallacy, if one thing in a book is true or some things in a book is true then that means ITS ALL TRUE. Even if it is confirmed that there was some guy named Pontus Pilate, and Jerusalem exists, does this prove Jesus was the son of God, rose from the dead, confirmed all the claims in genesis, cast out demons, healed amputees, and produced his own home improvement show, including episodes such as, working with wood, and how not to get nailed to it (Hey if people can make various claims about Jesus, so can I). No, no it doesn't.

Pro says "The question then becomes, were these people deluded or lying about what they saw". Yes people lie, also this leaves out another option, that a person never made the claim, but some one else either lied or mistakenly attributed the claims too them.

As far as Jesus confirming Genesis, Genesis has ALOT of claims in it, even if Jesus confirmed one claim doesn't mean he is confirming all claims of Genesis, I guess we can ask him what his position is............oh wait, we can't.

Pro says "Unfortunately, it requires many more assumptions to argue that the resurrection was faked or fabricated than it does to accept that the event was real. "

Your kidding right ? you mean all the assumptions that are needed to support the claims of an eternal personal God, raising Jesus from the dead, as opposed to people being mistaken and making stuff up ?

--- Countering the Logical Argument for God's Existence ---

The argument says, that logic can only exist if God exists. Well if an assertion is that all is needed then I can assert logic can exist even if God does not exist.

--- Reminder ---

I remind Pro of the question I asked at the start which is, are you saying I have to prove Gods non existence ? I am looking for a direct yes or no answer here.

I look forward to Pros response.


KRFournier

Pro

I thank my opponent again for his speedy responses.

Debate Parameters


To answer Con's question directly, yes, you have to prove God's non-existence per your own debate parameters. You said in round one, "I as the CON will present arguments that Gods [sic] non existence is more likely that its existence." I am not shifting the burden.

Extended Rebuttal

My simple rebuttal is that your only argument does not prove anything. It simply states that more things do not exist than do exist. So be it, but I am arguing that God does exists, so now what? Granted, if I did not have supporting evidence, this would be a valid argument. But I am providing two arguments and you are providing no other arguments. You made this debate a two-way street, so where is your evidence?

What is a universe?

Universe has two meanings: our cosmos or "a realm in which something exists or takes place." [1] Obviously, when I talk about other temporal or eternal universes, I am employing the latter definition.

Defense of KCA

Countering that the first cause must be personal

Con's rebuttal can be summarized in his question, "Why can't an eternal cause produce a finite amount of things?" Simply put, eternity and finity are logically incompatible when no will or mind is present. Any impersonal universe with no aspect of intelligence with a finite amount of events is, by definition, a temporal universe.

Let's try to imagine an eternal mechanical universe with no intelligence that creates only our universe at one point. Why would a universe that does nothing forever and forever suddenly do one thing? The only logical answer is that something changed. And when something changes, we have an effect. An effect always has a cause. Thus, the universe is not eternal after all because it now has its own chain of causes and effects.

Now, compare this with a personal eternal creator. When he creates, he causes an effect. But did something change? Not at all, for his will is the cause, and his will didn't change in the process.

There is no false dilemma. Logic necessitates only two options, as I have shown Con's third option to be no different than any other mechanical eternity one might conceive.

The argument that God is not eternal

Con's rebuttal suffers from the fallacy of redefinition. He is using my arguments, which refer to separate existences, i.e. eternal versus temporal, to mean all existences combined. I've clearly argued that God's existence operates independently of our universe, and I've argued repeatedly that he can cause effects without necessitating change over time.

The argument that God does not create anything

Con's second premise misrepresents my argument. It should read, "Things that do not change and have no will do not produce anything." With the second premise corrected, Con's conclusion becomes invalid.

Causation/time and timeless causes

Not all causes and effects are contained within the same universe. As we've already discussed, it's possible for an effect manifested in one universe to be the result of a cause from another universe. Con's fallacy is in his use of the phrase "a series of cause/effect." In premise one, he uses the phrase as it applies to a single temporal entity. In premise two, he uses it to mean all causes and effects in all existences combined: i.e., the fallacy of redefinition.

Countering the bible is historically accurate

I'm just going to drop this point because it's getting nowhere. I've already successfully argued for a personal creator and I don't want Con to make this point a red-herring. Thus, I'll allow KCA to be an evidential argument for a creator in general and I'll allow TAG to be an argument for Christianity specifically.

Defense of TAG

My opponent does not understand the argument, and so dismisses it. I'll focus on logic and see if that helps clarify the argument.

My opponent and I both presuppose that logic is a valid way to reach objective truth. What makes it valid? First, it's universal. If it were not, then he and I could have different rules of logic and validly reach opposing conclusions. As a result, truth would be arbitrary. Second, it is unchanging. The laws of logic will be the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. With the nature of logic established, we move to the transcendental part of the argument.

Transcendental arguments start at from the particulars and logically conclude the universals by determining the necessary preconditions. The first necessary precondition for logic to be universal and unchanging is that it must be abstract. It can't be matter and energy because they are in constant flux. Furthermore, it must involve some kind of intelligence. If there are no minds, then there is no logic as it is a function of minds. However, we can't merely say that it's a convention, because that allows room for logic to change. If it's a convention, how do we prove that the convention is correct? With logic? That would be question begging. However, if logic is absolute and abstract--that is, it exists independently of ourselves within a single unchanging mind that is universal to all other minds--then the conditions necessary to make logic reliable are in place.

So, now we've transcendentally argued that logic must be abstract and absolute, we finish the argument using process of elimination. In this debate, I'll simply choose two competing worldviews: the Christian worldview (God exists) and the naturalist worldview (there is only matter and motion). Of these two worldviews, I'll argue that only the Christian worldview can account for the necessary preconditions of logic. Now, there are many other worldviews, but I don't have infinite character space, so I'll start with these two and Con can offer any other worldview he thinks cannot be eliminated.

Before I eliminate worldviews, I must list the criteria by which the worldviews are to be rejected as rationally acceptable.

1. It must not be arbitrary.
2. It must be internally consistent.
3. It must rationally account for human experience.

Naturalism can be eliminated because it cannot simultaneously account for logic and remain internally consistent. If God does not exist and only matter and motion exist, then to be internally consistent, the naturalist must confess that logic is conventional and, therefore, arbitrary. It is not valid to prove the validity of logic as a convention using logic as a convention.

On the other hand, the Christian God meets all necessary preconditions for abstract absolute logic while simultaneously remaining internally consistent. God is immaterial and has an immutable mind. Logic, therefore, can exist independently from us and we can appeal to it as being reliable for finding objective truth.

By process of elimination, the Christian Worldview is correct. The Christian Worldview presupposes the existence of God. Therefore, God exists.

I invite my opponent to either refute my elimination process or to proffer other worldviews he thinks can meet all three criteria.

Conclusion

My opponent has only one more round to offer new arguments. So far, he has only offered one weak argument in favor of his position, which was refuted the moment I offered support for God's existence. He has focused instead on trying to refute KCA but has been struggling to do so. I have dropped premises 5 and 6 because, at this point, I do not think the time spent on them is worth it when Con has done so little to refute the rest of my case. He has yet to scratch the surface of TAG. As it stands, I feel accurate in stating that I am meeting my burden of proof to a far greater degree than my opponent.

Sources

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

--- Shifting the burden ---

Pro says "To answer Con's question directly, yes, you have to prove God's non-existence"

Pro implies that I have to prove that God does not exist, to justify the claim that its more likely that Gods non existence is more like than its existence.

I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist, in order to defend my position, I just have to prove that Gods non existence is more likely than its existence. Part of that is what you have already agreed too, that most possible things don't exist, and the other part is showing that you have presented bad arguments and thus should be rejected.

You see its not just enough to have ANY reason to believe in God or fairies or gremlins, you have to have a GOOD reason. Which raises the question have you provided a good reason ? That's kinda the point of the debate now isn't it.

--- Countering that the first cause is personal ---

--- A non personal first cause (or as pro likes to call it the mechanical universe factory) --

Pro says "Any impersonal universe with no aspect of intelligence with a finite amount of events is, by definition, a temporal universe."

I made it quite clear that I am arguing for the possibility a non personal first cause. The effects of the first cause are temporal not the first cause its self (or as you call it, the mechanical universe factory).

This is kinda silly since Pro is quite aware of this since they are arguing for a first cause that its self has no cause (God).

I have a suspicion that Pro calls this first cause that is non personal a universe, and also calls temporal effects universes to cause confusion. As such I ask Pro to not refer to a non personal first cause as a universe to alleviate me of my suspicions. Call it non personal first cause or NPFC for short.

--- Countering the premise that all eternal causes MUST be personal ---

Pro says "Con's rebuttal can be summarized in his question, "Why can't an eternal cause produce a finite amount of things?"

No, I made a typo error there, it should read, why can't an eternal non personal first cause produce a finite amount of things, also I should add to that, why can't an eternal non personal first cause produce a potential infinite of things as opposed to an actual infinite of things.

Pro says "Why would a universe that does nothing forever and forever suddenly do one thing? The only logical answer is that something changed"

You ask why would a non personal eternal cause do nothing for ever ? this is an irrational question because doing nothing for ever only applies to things in a time context. The first cause as you argued is "timeless", there is no time, thus there is no doing nothing for ever.

Pro says "And when something changes, we have an effect. An effect always has a cause. Thus, the universe is not eternal after all because it now has its own chain of causes and effects."

Why do you keep arguing that if a non personal first cause, causes something, that means the first cause was not timeless and uncaused to begin with ? Yet you have no problem accepting that God as a first cause, causes something but still remains timeless and uncaused ?

--- Non personal first cause vs Personal first cause with free will ---

Pro says "Now, compare this with a personal eternal creator. When he creates, he causes an effect. But did something change? Not at all, for his will is the cause, and his will didn't change in the process."

So God (a personal eternal thing ) can be a cause, but an eternal non personal thing can't ?. A non personal cause has to change in order to create an effect, but a personal eternal thing doesn't have to change cause of its "will" ? This is just a made up reason to get God off the hook.

God having an timeless/eternal/changeless will, doesn't get God out of Pros metaphysical rules. Cause the argument that eternal things that don't change can't produce anything still applies to this timeless/eternal/changless will, of a timeless/changeless God.

Special Pleading is a formal logical fallacy where a participant demands special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency. Therefore, they introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules.

While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a formal fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. [1]

Seeing there is no justification for this double standard, of God can be a changeless cause, while a non personal eternal thing can't, consider these arguments.

1) An effect requires a change to the cause (claimed by Pro)
2) Gods will does not change (claimed by Pro)
3) Therefore God will is not the cause of anything

or

1) An effect doesn't require a change to the cause
2) Gods will does not change and an eternal non personal thing does not change
3) Therefore Gods will or an eternal non personal thing could be a cause

So what's its going to be Pro ?

--- The First cause and Occam's razor ---

For those that are paying attention, I have not contested nor tried to refute the conclusion that there is a "first cause" in order to solve the infinite regress problem. What I have done, is argued what we should and should not deduce about this first cause in light of Pros arguments.

It could be argued that the first cause could be either non personal or personal, so why not just choose the personal over the non personal ? or maybe its split 50/50, flip a coin and take your bets.

A personal eternal cause, should not be taken over a non personal cause because it is unnecessarily adding to an already sufficient explanation. As occams razor says.... "Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place." [1]

Person hood is not necessary for the first cause, and as such should not be added to it.

The first cause only needs to be powerful enough to cause our universe/reality, or start a chain of causation that some where down the line results in our universe. To add "all powerful" to the first cause is unnecessary and unwarranted.

The first cause does not need to be "all good" thus ascribing any morality to it is unnecessary and unwarranted.

--- Countering Tag ---

I will have to seek some clarification on some things in Pro arguments before I can argue against it.

You claim that I have to provide an alternative world view ? why MUST I do this ? why can't I argue against the argument it self ?

You claim that.... "So, now we've transcendentally argued that logic must be abstract and absolute"

I find this to be an ambiguous claim cause what it means to be "absolute" can differ, especially in TAG arguments. One persons absolute only applies to this universe while another persons absolute has no exceptions what so ever.

So what does logic apply to, and what does it not ?

1) Does it apply to possible worlds/realities which may or may not come to ever exist ?
2) Does it apply to God (The God you are trying to prove exists)
3) Are there any exceptions what so ever where logic does not apply ?

You also claim that logic is abstract, and that the precondition of logic is abstract. Please give a definition and explanation of what it means to be "abstract", with an emphasis within the context of the TAG argument.

Sources

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
KRFournier

Pro

Debate Parameters

I didn't realize how strictly Con would use the term "prove." So be it, he doesn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't think I ever took that position myself. My point is, he said he would "present arguments that Gods [sic] non existence [sic] is more likely that its existence." So, I expected him to offer more than one very weak argument. But, what's done is done.

Defense of KCA

A non personal first cause (or as pro likes to call it the mechanical universe factory)

I understand quite well that Con is arguing for a non-personal first cause, and I've clearly reduced that argument to absurdity. I am not intentionally trying to create confusion. I defined universe in my last round as "a realm in which something exists or takes place." [1] An effect can itself be the creation of a universe even if the cause came from another realm. I'm using definitions here. I cannot help it if my opponent is confused.

Countering the premise that all eternal causes MUST be personal

An impersonal eternal first cause must not have a finite amount of things because it begs this question: what caused the first thing? If that entity is truly impersonal and has no will of its own, then there are two possibilities. First, the first thing was caused by an external entity, which clearly makes this entity not the first cause. The second possibility is the first thing was caused internally, but this option has its own problems. This mechanical universe produces no effects for eternity past and suddenly has a first effect? This is logically absurd unless the entity had some kind of will of its own.

As best as I can tell, Con is getting caught up in semantics and confusing the terms temporal and eternal. He's making this argument more difficult than it actually is. Let me try to break it down.

P1. An eternal entity does not change.
P2. A mechanical entity that does a finite number of things did so because it changed.
C1. Therefore, a mechanical universe that does a finite number of things is not eternal.

An eternal non-personal entity cannot change. It must either be doing the same thing perpetually or it must be doing nothing. If it is doing nothing, it will cause nothing. If it is perpetual, it must have been designed, which again eliminates it as a possible first cause. Thus, the first cause must be eternal and it must have a mind.

I have no problem accepting that God is the eternal first cause because he can do something—such as create our universe—without changing.

Non personal first cause vs Personal first cause with free will

I am not engaging in special pleading as I am not asking for an exception to my rules. When I speak of change, I speak of change in the properties of the entity. A non-personal eternal entity requires a change in its properties in order to be a cause. For example, a dead entity must change into an active one in order to do something, which necessitates cause. A perpetual entity does not require change in its properties, but then it necessitates a designer.

God's properties do not change when he exercises his free will and engages his mind, for his ability to make choices and execute them are fixed properties. The causes a change in the sense that a universe that was not there is there now, but it is not a change in his existence, only a change in existence as a whole. Said another way, we can think of two entities. God and God-Plus-Everything-Else. When God created, God did not change even though God-Plus-Everything-Else did change. In impersonal entity, on the other hand, must require a change within itself to achieve the same effect.

My rebuttal to Con's first syllogism is that his second premise is false due to the fallacy of equivocation. He is equivocating a free will (the ability to make choices) with the changes that occur because of those choices. The will does not change when one makes a choice. When I eat eggs for breakfast, I change the state of the universe, but my free agency is the same both before and after my decision to eat eggs for breakfast.

Furthermore, the first premise in both syllogisms is a straw man. It leaves out so much of what I've argued. An effect requires change to the properties of the entity that caused it if it has no will. That's the premise I've meticulously argued for. When used as the first premise in both of Con's syllogisms, then both of his conclusions become non sequitur.

The First cause and Occam's razor

Occam's razor actually supports a personal first cause. An impersonal eternal first cause, if it is isn't dead, is a perpetual machine without a will. All mindless machines have properties of engineering. Thus, you have to assume the perfect design without a designer.

God requires no designer because he is spirit (per my definition at the start). Any attempt to classify God as requiring design would lead fallacious reasoning, but I'll let me opponent object to this assertion.

The question is, which is more parsimonious? A self-existent machine or a self-existent spirit?

Defense of TAG

TAG argues from worldviews. All people ultimately rely on some unproven assumption about reality, which is due to the problem of infinite regression when justifying knowledge. The sum of those presuppositions is called a worldview. Instead of deducing the existence of God, which will ultimately rely on competing presuppositions about what can and cannot be true, TAG simply sets out to determine which worldview is more likely true than the rest. That's why I am giving Con the opportunity to offer a worldview he thinks meets all three criteria or why the Christian worldview does not.

To be absolute means to be objective and universally applicable to all beings, as opposed to subjective or arbitrary. For example, when Person A argues that Person B is engaging in a logical fallacy, he is presupposing that the logical laws that apply Person A apply equally to Person B. To that end, I will answer Con's questions.

1) TAG does not care about other existences. It argues from our experience. Logic applies to our existence as evidenced in our debating. If we did not believe logic applied to all people, we would not bother arguing.

2) Logic does not apply to God in the sense that he is dependent upon it. God is a presupposition of the Christian worldview, and his quality is that of a perfectly rational being. Therefore, logic is a property of God.

3) I suppose logic does not apply where there is no objective truth or no rational minds to employ them.

To be abstract means to be intangible in nature [2] and, more specifically, to be the product of thought. Logic would not exist without the mind, and to maintain the property of being absolute, it requires a single, universal, immutable mind behind it.

Conclusion

Con has managed to escape offering any further arguments in favor of his position and has instead elected to supply one argument that only marginally works if he can tear down mine. I assert that he has yet to do so. He continues to get mired down in terminologies and concepts. I have shown his attempts at refuting KCA to be wanting, as he engages in misinterpretations of my arguments and fallacies of equivocation. He hasn't really refuted TAG yet, as it still seems to elude him. I think it is fair to say I am still in the lead in fulfilling the burden's Con set forth.

Sources
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

So I don't have to keep typing the same thing over and over. (Yeah its a bit late now I know)

I shall refer to the non personal first cause as Non PFC

I shall refer to the personal first cause as PFC

--- Countering that the first cause is personal ---

--- Redefining what a non personal cause is ---

Pro says about the Non PFC "An eternal non-personal entity cannot change. It must either be doing the same thing perpetually or it must be doing nothing. If it is doing nothing, it will cause nothing. If it is perpetual, it must have been designed."

So something that is perpetual MUST be designed eh ?

1) If something is perpetual it is designed
2) God is perpetual
3) Therefore God is designed

Pro says "An impersonal eternal first cause, if it is isn't dead, is a perpetual machine without a will. All mindless machines have properties of engineering. Thus, you have to assume the perfect design without a designer."

By redefining the non personal first cause a machine and having engineer properties and being designed, by definition this means that the the non personal first cause has a cause, after all machines are built by a machine maker, a design has a designer and something with engineer properties has an engineer.

I didn't release we could just redefine things. Cool I can do that too.....

1) God is a truck
2) Trucks have a designer
3) Thus God has a designer

Maybe God isn't a truck, and maybe a non personal first cause isn't a machine with engineering properties with a designer eh ?

--- First causes and what they cause ---

Pro says "An impersonal eternal first cause must not have a finite amount of things because it begs this question: what caused the first thing?"

Cmon Pro, my Non PFC doesn't have a finite amount of things, its CAUSES a finite amount of things, just like your PFC causes a finite amount of things. How many times have we been over this.

--- A counter argument ---

Here is my counter argument.....

A Personal eternal first cause must not have a finite amount of things because it begs this question: what caused the first thing? If that entity is truly Personal, then there are two possibilities. First, the first thing was caused by an external entity, which clearly makes this entity not the first cause. The second possibility is the first thing was caused internally, but this option has its own problems. The personal cause produces no effects for eternity past and suddenly has a first effect? What caused it to choose to change the situation from being the only thing that exists, to choosing a different situation where now something else exists ? (The universe began to exist).

1) An eternal entity does not change (claimed by pro)
2) A Personal entity went from not doing a finite amount of things to doing a finite amount of things because it changed.
3) Therefore, A personal entity that does a finite amount of things is not eternal

Compare this to Pros argument which was.......

P1. An eternal entity does not change.
P2. A mechanical entity that does a finite number of things did so because it changed.
C1. Therefore, a mechanical universe that does a finite number of things is not eternal.

--- Countering Tag ---

--- Logic or The three laws of classic logic ? ---

Pro talks about logic being "absolute".

Logic defined is "Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.... Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies." [1]

I suspect when Pro says logic is absolute, they are really referring to the three classic laws of thought. According to wikipedia The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are.......

1)law of identity
2)law of noncontradiction
3)law of excluded middle [2]

--- Logic absolutes have to come from a perfect mind ? ---

Pro says "However, if logic is absolute and abstract--that is, it exists independently of ourselves within a single unchanging mind that is universal to all other minds--then the conditions necessary to make logic reliable are in place."

Pro is arguing that we are capable of having logic absolutes in our mind, yet our mind is not perfect. This proves that logic absolutes doesn't need to reside in a "perfect" mind.

--- God and Logical absolutes ---

Logic absolutes apply to God, cause as Pro says "To be absolute means to be objective and universally applicable to all beings, as opposed to subjective or arbitrary". This is a bit of a problem for TAG, why ? Cause Logic absolutes are dependent on God for their existence (according to Pro) yet God is bound by Logic absolutes. For instance God can't be God and not be God in the same sense.

If the universe and its "physical laws" are dependent on God for their existence, then obviously God is not bound to those physical laws, since the laws existence are dependent on God.

If A (in this case the universe physical laws) is dependent on X (in this case God) for its existence, then X is not bound by A.

But with logical absolutes, God is bound by these logical absolutes, thus they are not dependent on God (or Gods immutable mind as pro calls it) for their existence.

Pro says "Logic would not exist without the mind, and to maintain the property of being absolute, it requires a single, universal, immutable mind behind it."

This is an equivocation "thinking about logic" is equated to the actual thing its self. For instance I could be eating an apple, and have the "thought" of the apple, but that thought of the apple is NOT the same as the actual apple.

Like wise having the the "thought" of a logical absolute, is NOT the same as the actual logical absolute.

At this point I will answer some possible objections that might be raised.

--- But God nature is logic or God has the property of logic that's why God is bound to it -

Its not that God nature is absolute logic, its just that absolute logic bounds everything that exists, whether man or God. God can't be God and not be God in the same sense, just like a human can't be and not be a human in the same sense. What this tells us is that logical absolutes is a precondition of anything that exists (God included), as opposed to Pros claim that God is the precondition of logical absolutes.

--- But God is not dependent on logic absolutes for its existence ---

My counter argument never included the claim that God is dependent on logical absolutes for its existence, just that God is bound to logic absolutes (like the rest of us and everything) and thus the contradiction of then claiming logic absolutes is dependent on God for their existence.

--- Well how do you explain/account for the existence of Logic absolutes ? ---

Even if I didn't have an answer, It would not prove or imply that God exists.

The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore the cause must be supernatural.[3]

I could give the same answer, as Pro would when asked to account for Gods existence, well it exists necessarily. Logical absolutes exist necessarily.

Closing Arguments

I am out of room, so Ill make it brief, when Pros arguments for the existence of God is scrutinized, the arguments are shown lacking, as such should not be accepted. Without a good reason to the contrary Gods non existence is more likely than Gods existence.

Vote Con.

I thank Pro for participating in this debate.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...


KRFournier

Pro

I thank my opponent for being present and prompt at all rounds. It's always a pleasure to see a debate all the way through to its completion. I also thank all readers who patiently took the time to read through all the arguments and consider their merit.

Defense of KCA

Redefining what a non personal cause is

Right off the bat, my opponent again mischaracterizes my statements. I specifically state that a Non-PFC "must either be doing the same thing perpetually or it must be doing nothing." To go from that to, "If something is perpetual it is designed," is a clear cut straw man fallacy. I have used step-by-step logic to conclude the nature of a Non-PFC.

A Non-PFC must:

  1. have no mind, by definition.
  2. remain unchanged in order to remain eternal and self-sufficient.
There are two—and only two—options for such an entity:
  1. It does nothing at all, i.e., it is dead.
  2. It is does the same thing over and over without decay, i.e., it is perpetual.
Any other option one might conceive would violate either one of the two criteria that makes a Non-PFC what it is. I have not redefined a Non-PFC to be a machine, that's just what it is. If it has no mind and does the same thing over and over again perpetually, then what else do I call it?

Con's whole point here is to argue that perhaps the Non-PFC is not a machine after all, but he doesn't offer an alternative explanation. If it doesn't have a mind, how can it do something without being the product of some other entity? I have done everything I can to logically support my claim and Con keeps using red herring tactics to avoid its validity.

First causes and what they cause

My opponent is arguing semantics here. I said "to have a finite amount of things" and my opponent is emphasizing "to cause a finite amount of things." It still begs the same question. What prompted the entity to cause the first thing? The only way it caused the first thing is if it changed.

A counter argument

Con literally copies and pastes my argument and replaces non-personal with personal. He is trying to show that the arguments apply equally to both. But I've already argued that is not the case.

A personal entity has a mind. It thinks. It decides. It chooses. It acts.

I have already exhaustively argued that doing the above actions does not change the entity's properties. Con ignores all my exposition in this regard in asserts the opposite without any supporting reasons. He just plagiarizes my words, swaps some terms, and hopes the readers will be gullible enough to consider it a proper counter argument.

Defense of TAG

Logic or The three laws of classic logic?

Yes, the three laws of logic attributed to Aristotle are the kinds of laws I am discussing.

Logic absolutes have to come from a perfect mind?

A law is immutable, invisible, and universal. If a law is not abstract then it loses its immutability. If it is not absolute then it loses its universality. So, what worldview rationally accounts for abstract, absolute entities? The Christian Worldview presupposes a single unchanging, universal, rational mind and therefore accounts for the properties of absolute and abstract.

Indeed, imperfect minds are able to utilize logic. But that's not the point. The point is, what makes logical laws universally binding to all of us? What makes them reliable with regards to attaining objective truth? So, while imperfect minds can rationalize, imperfect minds do not account for the laws of logic being universal and unchanging.

God and Logical absolutes

I did say, "To be absolute means to be objective and universally applicable to all beings." That was a grammatical error on my part. "All beings" should have read "all people." However, I think I context would have cleared that up since I later argued that God is not himself subject to logical laws.

This argument is, once again, another straw man. I specifically stated that "logic is a property of God." Remember, TAG deals with worldviews. Worldviews are collections of assumptions about reality. The Christian Worldview assumes God is rational and perfect. Therefore, logical laws are a property of His rational perfections. The goal is not to prove or disprove the relationship between God and logic. The goal is to show whether or not this assumption about reality accounts for human experience and remains internally consistent with the other worldview assumptions.

TAG is not your typical approach to proving the truth of something, and that has left Con swinging and missing.

But God nature is logic or God has the property of logic that's why God is bound to it

God's existence is not bound to logic. To say that God cannot be both God and not God does not, remotely, make God dependent on logic, because it's Con making the statement, not God. Con is thinking rationally, and his statement of "God cannot be both God and not God" is true only if the laws of logic are reliable means to truth. Now, God does think rational thoughts, but that's because he's rational by definition. God is the assumption. I do not have to prove that God is not bound by logic because Christians simply assume it's true.

The question is, do Christian assumptions account for the laws of logic more so than other assumptions? All people have worldviews. All worldviews make assumptions. (The reason is, as I've already stated, because no one can prove everything ad infinitum).

But God is not dependent on logic absolutes for its existence

TAG doesn't claim that logical laws are dependent on God. They are simply a property of God. God didn't create logic, he's simply logical by nature. TAG looks to account for logic, and that's a wholly different goal. To account for logic is to verify that logical laws are rationally consistent within the worldview.

Well how do you explain/account for the existence of Logic absolutes?

The God-of-the-Gaps defense does not apply as I freely admit that God is the assumption.

TAG does not argue that God exists necessarily. It argues that for logical laws to be reliable, they have necessary attributes, namely being absolute and abstract. God is the worldview assumption, and since no other worldview can account for the necessary attributes of logical laws, it is the worldview most likely to be true. So, when Con says he is permitted to say that logical absolutes exist necessarily, he's really engaging in an ontological argument that TAG is not making.

Conclusion

I'd like to remind the readers of this debate's parameters. In Con's own words:
  • I as the CON will present arguments that Gods non existence is more likely that its existence.
  • My opponent as the PRO will present arguments that Gods existence is more likely than its non existence.
I submit that Con completely backed out of his burden. Instead of presenting arguments that God's non-existence is more likely, he instead focused on simply trying to refute my arguments. Yet, his rebuttals are full of misrepresentations, redefinitions, and red herrings.

I have argued for the existence of God in general using a form of Kalam's Cosmological Argument. I have also argued for the Christian God's existence using the Transcendental Argument. While at least one commenter feels I have not adequately argued for the God of Christianity, I must point out that my burden is only to show that God's existence (in general) is more likely than not. I simply chose to defend the Christian God in order to keep the debate focused and to avoid the fallacies that I personally feel plague other religious worldviews.

If any reader feels I have made a better case for my position than Con has for his, that alone should be reason enough to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wizkid345 5 years ago
wizkid345
i disagre with pro, the main reason being that he stated god is perfect. Perfection or perfect means to be complete in evey way. Why might this be a problem?
Simple if god was complete befor the creation of man why would he create us, what is are purpose, are we just mear toys to amuse this great being or are we bigger than that
Posted by JustinChains 5 years ago
JustinChains
I must say that I agree with almost every point that Pro makes about the exist of God. But, I do not agree that the evidence provided in the argument shows a strong case for a Christian God.

My opinion...

In the argument "The existence of God" Pro wins hands down

In the argument of Pro's "Christian God" Con wins hands down, as I feel any evidence given in support of Pro's "Christian God" was lacking.
Posted by Sojourner 5 years ago
Sojourner
Looking forward to the final round
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
That was mean't to say, why can't an eternal non personal cause create a finite amount of things.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Why can't an eternal cause produce a finite amount of things "

IC, as just a friendly note, you need to more carefully read the argument by Pro, he has carefully outlined exactly why the conclusions are reached and has excluded all options aside from what is given. In order to successfully challenge the argument you have to attack the premises directly as the conclusions are extremely well argued from them in Pro's presentation.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
I was very clear from the argument in any case.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Yes, "actual" should have been "actual infinite". I suppose that will count against me in the spelling/grammar vote. I do thank you for making the clarification so others aren't misled.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Since there cannot be an actual number of temporal universes, we must conclude that eventually, there is an eternal cause"

Very nice opening, however was that supposed to be infinite not actual?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
IllegalcombatantKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious...
Vote Placed by brokenboy 5 years ago
brokenboy
IllegalcombatantKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: L
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 5 years ago
MrCarroll
IllegalcombatantKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the winner is clear on this one.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con you really need to consider the Kalam and TAG in detail, you kept asking questions already answered by Pro
Vote Placed by Freeman 5 years ago
Freeman
IllegalcombatantKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD to come: In the meantime, Con's grammar, spelling and structure was really poor.