The Instigator
diety
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

the existence of a Christian God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,287 times Debate No: 8237
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (6)

 

diety

Con

I am in negation of the existence of a Christian god.

:)
KRFournier

Pro

I thank my opponent for starting this debate. I for one can't get enough of these.

The resolution is neither a positive or negative assertion. Therefore, I argue that burden of proof will fall on both parties. The resolution is equivalent to this interrogative: "Does the Christian God exist?" My opponent is burdened to prove the answer is no as I am equally burdened to prove the answer is yes. It will not be sufficient for him to merely refute my arguments. Both sides must offer proofs for their positions and simultaneously refute the opposition. Since my opponent has yet to offer any arguments, I will dedicate the entirety of this opening round to mine.

I will start this debate with the illustration of two scholars convening to debate the existence of air. Both sides offer profound arguments and challenging cross-examination over whether or not air is real. Such a debate would be embarrassing for the debater attempting to prove air doesn't exist since its existence is a necessary precondition for him to debate in the first place. He would be a living contradiction whose argument could only be possible if it were wrong. By showing up to the debate, he's already lost.

My opponent is like the man arguing against the existence of air. By asserting that God doesn't exist, he has undermined his ability to rationalize his position. By virtue of taking Con in this debate he has in principle already lost.

Debate presupposes logical laws, scientific principles, moral obligation, objective knowledge, human dignity, and so forth. These things are often taken for granted. While both my opponent and I might agree these things are reliable and meaningful, we will still come to conflicting conclusions. This is because our assumptions regarding the nature of these principles differ. The differences in our assumptions reveal a worldview conflict. By instigating this debate and taking Con, my opponent asserts an atheistic worldview, and I the Christian theistic worldview by accepting. Unfortunately for my opponent, atheism as a worldview, cannot intellectually account for the aforementioned principles and ultimately refutes itself. Allow me to demonstrate.

My opponent has argued in past debates that the existence of evil contradicts the existence of an all powerful, all good, all knowing, personal God. This argument presupposes absolute morality (evil is objectively wrong), logical laws (the logical law of non-contradiction is universally binding), and linguistic meaningfulness (the terms describing God are universal in there meaning and understanding). Without these principles, the argument fails intellectually.

Let's analyze for the moment just the moral aspect. If he appeals to something arbitrary like nature or social standards to define evil, then his argument loses meaning. To prove that the existence of both evil and God is logically impossible, evil must be on the same scale as God. Both must be transcendent and immutable, otherwise, the argument is invalid. If God is defined as transcendent and immutable, then evil defined as man's consensus is not the logical opposite. No, the logical opposite must at least be as transcendent and immutable. His only hope, therefore, is to presuppose an objective moral system.

However, atheism cannot appeal to absolute morality. For anything to be objective, it must be accessible. Matter is objective because all mankind can access it. So is energy. In an atheist worldview, where is morality and how do we access it? Remember, it can't be consensus or the Argument from Evil is invalid. Even if he appeals to dualism, the presupposition that morality and other laws are in a reality of their own, he still has the problem of not having access to such an alternate reality. Atheism simply cannot account for the kind of morality necessary to make the Argument from Evil intelligible.

The only way for the Argument from Evil to become valid is to presuppose Christian theism. Absolute morality, and thus objective evil, is cogent in the Christian worldview because it is universal, transcendent, and accessible. It's universal and transcendent because God is universal and transcendent, making evil objective as opposed to arbitrary. It's accessible because it's based on God's omnibenevolent character which has been revealed to mankind via his Word. God is the necessary precondition to make intelligible the very thing my opponent would hope to use in his disproof of God. In other words, for the Argument from Evil to even be possible, it must be false.

My example focused on morality, but the atheist also struggles to account for the other principles as well. For example, the atheist presupposes that the universe is non-teleological, driven by purposeless forces, but will insist that science brings objective knowledge. However, science presupposes an ordered universe--not a random one--in which the future will behave like the past. Atheism is again caught within a self-contradiction. If science is reliable, then the presupposition of a chaotic universe must be wrong. Yet, the atheist cannot hope to escape this trap by presupposing an ordered universe because the necessary precondition for such a universe is a transcendent and immutable God. The notion that order comes from disorder or--worse yet--nothing is simply irrational. The point is that Christian theism does not have this problem. Scientific principles are made intelligible because both science and theism presuppose an ordered universe, which was created by an ordered God.

In the final analysis, atheism cannot rationally account for logical laws, scientific principles, objective knowledge, and absolute morals—the very things my opponent needs to even participate in this debate. Oh, he will certainly use these things, but in so doing, he relies on Christian presuppositions. In this way, he will be like the man arguing against the existence of air all the while breathing it. He can argue for atheism only if it is false. Therefore, atheism is false and the Christian God exists.

I turn the floor to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
diety

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate

"The resolution is neither a positive or negative assertion. Therefore, I argue that burden of proof will fall on both parties. The resolution is equivalent to this interrogative: "Does the Christian God exist?" My opponent is burdened to prove the answer is no as I am equally burdened to prove the answer is yes. "

Technically the burden of proof is on you. It is not my responsibility to prove non-existence. Me tearing down you arguments ought to be enough for me to win, but to prevent conflict that would lessen our time for debate, I will present some arguments as well.

"I will start this debate with the illustration of two scholars convening to debate the existence of air. Both sides offer profound arguments and challenging cross-examination over whether or not air is real. Such a debate would be embarrassing for the debater attempting to prove air doesn't exist since its existence is a necessary precondition for him to debate in the first place. He would be a living contradiction whose argument could only be possible if it were wrong. By showing up to the debate, he's already lost."

Well it would be embarrasing to try to disprove something that has already been PROVEN to exist and contributes to your very existence, like trying to disprove the existence of fetuses. Okay I got you, but I don't see how this pertains to your argument yet.

"My opponent is like the man arguing against the existence of air. By asserting that God doesn't exist, he has undermined his ability to rationalize his position. By virtue of taking Con in this debate he has in principle already lost."

Well, god hasn't been PROVEN to exist.

"Debate presupposes logical laws, scientific principles, moral obligation, objective knowledge, human dignity, and so forth. These things are often taken for granted. While both my opponent and I might agree these things are reliable and meaningful, we will still come to conflicting conclusions. This is because our assumptions regarding the nature of these principles differ. The differences in our assumptions reveal a worldview conflict. By instigating this debate and taking Con, my opponent asserts an atheistic worldview, and I the Christian theistic worldview by accepting. Unfortunately for my opponent, atheism as a worldview, cannot intellectually account for the aforementioned principles and ultimately refutes itself. Allow me to demonstrate"

Bring it on buddy.

"My opponent has argued in past debates that the existence of evil contradicts the existence of an all powerful, all good, all knowing, personal God. This argument presupposes absolute morality (evil is objectively wrong), logical laws (the logical law of non-contradiction is universally binding), and linguistic meaningfulness (the terms describing God are universal in there meaning and understanding). Without these principles, the argument fails intellectually."

How is what I'm wondering. Let me examine further so I can properly criticize.

"Let's analyze for the moment just the moral aspect. If he appeals to something arbitrary like nature or social standards to define evil, then his argument loses meaning. To prove that the existence of both evil and God is logically impossible, evil must be on the same scale as God. Both must be transcendent and immutable, otherwise, the argument is invalid. If God is defined as transcendent and immutable, then evil defined as man's consensus is not the logical opposite. No, the logical opposite must at least be as transcendent and immutable. His only hope, therefore, is to presuppose an objective moral system."

No. What I was saying in my previous debate is that good fruit cannot bare bad fruit. If something all loving, all knowing (of course implying they already knew the future), and all powerful were to create something, how or why would it be evil, and why would there be suffering? He's like an apple tree making bannanas: it just doesn't make sense. They don't both have to be transcendent or immutable either. It's just the assertion that something that all good created everything and knew the past, present, and future, just so happened to create something evil. It is if anything a logical contradiction making the assertion invalid.

"However, atheism cannot appeal to absolute morality. For anything to be objective, it must be accessible. Matter is objective because all mankind can access it. So is energy. In an atheist worldview, where is morality and how do we access it? Remember, it can't be consensus or the Argument from Evil is invalid. Even if he appeals to dualism, the presupposition that morality and other laws are in a reality of their own, he still has the problem of not having access to such an alternate reality. Atheism simply cannot account for the kind of morality necessary to make the Argument from Evil intelligible."

Your right, atheism cannot appeal to absolute morality. Atheism itself is mearly lack of belief in a deity. Also, you forget that atheism is not a religion, so in itself has no beliefs or values. However that doesn't mean that an atheist lacks beliefs or values, it just means they just don't look to religion for it. In your argument you imply that the only way to have any intelligence is through some kind of deity, but has yet to give any evidence as to why. For what I know, it is a simple argument from lack of imagination. I cannot imagine how morality or intelligence can exist without a Christian god, therefore the Christian god must have been the reason why there is morality and intelligence.

Before I continue, let me make one more point. Atheism is not just lack of belief in one deity (monotheism), but can account for lack of belief in many (polytheism). So, do you believe in the gods from the greek mythology?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or the egyptian mythology?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why not?

Oo

They were theists (as apposed to atheists). They thought that the only possible explaination for their existence and for moral laws was because of.... this whole list of gods. Their arguments is just as valid as yours are. Prove to me how your ideology is superior to theirs, and how you're right and they're wrong. If you don't then I'm with these guys, as the Christian god doesn't exist, I could say that the greek gods do.

:)

"The only way for the Argument from Evil to become valid is to presuppose Christian theism. Absolute morality, and thus objective evil, is cogent in the Christian worldview because it is universal, transcendent, and accessible. It's universal and transcendent because God is universal and transcendent, making evil objective as opposed to arbitrary. It's accessible because it's based on God's omnibenevolent character which has been revealed to mankind via his Word. God is the necessary precondition to make intelligible the very thing my opponent would hope to use in his disproof of God. In other words, for the Argument from Evil to even be possible, it must be false."

Like I said before, I will say again.... you have no proof. Your argument is one from lack of imagination. You cannot explain to me how you certainly know that this god exists, but you still insist that he does because there is no possible explaination for morality to exist. If there is no other possible explaination, why can't you explain his existence in the first place. And as far as god's character being revealed to mankind through his word, let me ask you a question:

The other gods that I mentioned above, did they reveal themselves to mankind through their words? To me, the Christian god is not the answer, but these gods above are, and if you don't need to prove yourself then I am just as right as you are.

I am running out of space to type (70 characters left)

To summarize, the existence of a christian god is unwarranted

:)
KRFournier

Pro

The burden of proof can often be deduced from the wording of the resolution. In this case, being that the resolution is neutral in its assertion, I concluded that both sides have burden of proof. My opponent disagrees, and he is entitled to do so. In the end, the voters will decide.

My opponent's play-by-play rebuttal does little to refute my actual argument and serves as an example of the dangers of such an approach. This kind of per-paragraph commentary only manages to refute individual statements outside of the context in which they have their meaning. As a result, he failed to address my actual argument.

There are over twenty references to worldviews, presuppositions, pre-commitments, and assumptions in my opening statements. Clearly, my argument centers on worldviews. A worldview is a collection of presuppositions—assumptions about the reality and nature of things like morality, knowledge, human worth, and so forth. A worldview acts as an intellectual filter through which we interpret facts into evidence, distinguish between right and wrong, and determine value and worth. All people carry theses sets of assumptions, including myself and my opponent. In this debate, I specifically cite the worldview conflict between atheism and theism, and he did not address it.

After a few commentaries that simply amount to saying, "I'm not sure where you're going with this," he engages the Argument from Evil. He says, "If something all loving, all knowing (of course implying they already knew the future), and all powerful were to create something, how or why would it be evil, and why would there be suffering? He's like an apple tree making bananas [sic]: it just doesn't make sense." He doesn't say why it doesn't make sense, he just asserts it. I hope he's not arguing from lack of imagination, for he accuses me of this very thing later on. He goes on to say that Evil does not have to be both transcendent and immutable, once again, without substantiating this position. In fact, his entire critique here is assumptive. He doesn't feel a need to explain these obvious (to him at least) self-attesting truths.

But wait! Atheistic assumptions are what I attacked in the first place. He's using the very worldview I refuted in my opening argument. Had he made any effort to refute my actual argument, this would not be an issue. As it stands, he's arguing (well, assuming rather) from a faulty foundation.

Allow me to explain again why morality must be universally binding and absolute in order for the Argument from Evil to be intelligible. Imagine how ridiculous it would sound to say that God cannot exist because it doesn't make sense for Him to make something I think is ugly, or smelly, or boring. It is the equivalent of saying, "Because there exists things I dislike, God can't exist." Subjective morality is philosophically arbitrary and not much different than mere opinion. The argument in this case is built on sand. Only an appeal to absolute morality can make this argument meaningful, and only the Christian theistic worldview can appeal to such a concept of evil. This is a difficult bind that my opponent has not begun to address. To make matters worse for him (and much better for me), he gives credibility to this dilemma by saying, "Your right, atheism cannot appeal to absolute morality." My opponent has conceded my premise and made my conclusion all the stronger.

My opponent goes on to insist I am arguing from a lack of imagination, demanding proof he claims is absent. Did he not read my argument? I will post my closing paragraph from round one again, which summarizes my proof:

"In the final analysis, atheism cannot rationally account for logical laws, scientific principles, objective knowledge, and absolute morals—the very things my opponent needs to even participate in this debate. Oh, he will certainly use these things, but in so doing, he relies on Christian presuppositions. In this way, he will be like the man arguing against the existence of air all the while breathing it. He can argue for atheism only if it is false. Therefore, atheism is false and the Christian God exists."

To paraphrase, the proof of the Christian God is that outside of the Christian theistic worldview, one cannot prove anything. Debate presupposes logical laws, scientific principles, moral obligation, etc. Christian theism is the only worldview whose presuppositions meet all the necessary preconditions to account for these things. Therefore, God exists. My opponent has not even acknowledged my argument. I have offered my proof; he either chooses to ignore it or does not understand it. In either case, he has one round left in which to refute it. To do so will require philosophically sound proof that atheistic presuppositions indeed provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible debate.

Lastly, I will address my opponent's question regarding the validity of the Greek or Egyptian gods. As I do, I urge the readers to notice that my opponent did not assert anything in this regard. He merely demanded that I proved they do not exist. This, of course, is not the resolution we are debating. This amounts to a red herring defense. Instead of engaging my arguments head on, he flanks me with these questions. That being said, I will use similar worldview philosophy to explain why these gods cannot exist.

In these two philosophies, the gods either lack transcendence, immutability, or both—the necessary preconditions for the things I discussed earlier. These gods are described as extremely capricious, unpredictable, and imperfect beings. It is irrational for a follower of these mythologies to appeal to absolute morality or immutable logical laws just like it is for the atheist. The Christian God on the other hand transcends the physical universe and he is perfect, thus accounting for the kinds of things necessary to know anything at all. In this way, the Christian Worldview is easily superior to the Greek and Egyptian mythologies.

To summarize this round, my opponent has yet to address my main argument. He has made many assertions and few arguments. However, he has one more opportunity to turn the tables. I open the floor to him and look forward to our final rounds.
Debate Round No. 2
diety

Con

^o^

Nice try pal. Actually I would've rebutted your arguments even more had I had the space. Instead of copying the whole paragraph, I'll just copy the first few lines.

"There are over twenty..." - You clearly say worldviews are a collection of ASSUMPTIONS. Assumptions prove nothing. We cannot make facts out of what is not proven, and jumping to conclusions from what we assume is by no means intellectual. What your arguing is OPINION. Also as I said before, a non-belief is not a belief. If there is no proof for something's existence, it is not irrational to think that it doesn't exist.

I challenge you to answer me this: Does the invisible, inaudible unicorn exist? Watch my opponent attempt to ignore my challenge.

"After a few commentaries..." - I certainly did say why the argument of evil doesn't make sense: It's logical paradox. It's not an argument from lack of imagination. If it is that's like saying if I deny the truthfulness of a Cretan saying "All statements that all Cretans make are lies," or if I deny the existence of a square triangle (A 2d, 3 sided, 4 sided, closed polygon), I make an argument from lack of imagination. He says that I have to support that Evil doesn't have to be both transcendent and immutable, but I'm not the one the claimed it was in the first place. He doesn't give any evidence as to why we should think such. Basically, if he says fairies exist, I can just say no they don't and he's the one who has to provide evidence supporting his claim, otherwise I win by default. He tried to pull a fast one and switch the burden of proof before he gives evidence.

"But wait! Atheistic assumptions..." - If I'm assuming your god doesn't exist, you're assuming my list of gods don't exist.

"Allow me to explain again why morality..." - Nooooo. You keep trying to pull a fast one and mix facts in with opinions. If this god claims to be clearly all good and knowingly creates something clearly evil, there's your contradiction. It doesn't matter if it's something I like or dislike, it's the fact that that doesn't make any sense. Just like your whole air argument, its a logical contradiction. To make matters worse, he deems logical paradoxes as arguments from lack of imagination, a clear mistake. If such a god can create evil, then we can soundly argue the non-existence of oxygen.

For the next point: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also you talk about how I aid your argument by saying that atheism cannot appeal to absolute morality. That doesn't mean anything. How does being able to approve to absolute morality prove existence. The invisible, inaudible, unicorn says that killing is right in all situations and feeding others is completely wrong. It appeals to aboslute morality. Under your logic it must prove it's existence. Also, if something doesn't appeal to absolute morality, that doesn't make it invalid. Science doesn't appeal to absolute morality. That doesn't make it invallid.

Despite all of this, you forget that this debate not about if the worldviews of the Christian faith are valid, but if the christian god exists.

"In the final analysis, atheism cannot..." - Which is why your argument is an argument from ignorance. This is does not serve as proof, but is a mere assumption. First of all, just because atheism doesn't rationally account for these things does not make it invalid or make Christianity valid. You keep implying that the only way we can account for logical laws, scientific principles, objective knowledge, and absolute morals is to rely on christian assumptions (which are unwarranted of course). Your man vs air argument only pertains to this debate if you assume that this exists.

Your argument has as much validity as "the invisible pink unicorn made color. You see color all around you, yet you argue against the invisible pink unicorn." Yes there is color, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the invisible pink unicorn exists. Your argument goes "god created logical laws, objective knowledge, scientific principles, and absolute morals. You are using all of these things to promote your argument, yet you argue against the existence of god." The existence of these things don't necessarily mean the Christian god exists. Under your logic any fictional concept that "accounts" for all those things that you said the Christian god made exists, and perhaps their absolute morals are different, then they exist as well.

This is called affirming the consequent.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"To paraphrase, the proof of the Christian..." Like I said before, just because your beliefs account for the things you deem necessary for an intelligible debate doesn't necessary make it automatically right. Just because something is the only hypothesis does not mean it is factual. As I said before, it doesn't matter if atheism can appeal to the necessary preconditions for an intelligible debate, what matters is if the Christian god exists. You have offered NO proof whatsoever, you simply insist that if your hypothesis for an explaination of our existence is the only one standing, it must be automatically right. This is precisely an argument from ignorance. Until you have proof, then we are not obligated to believe you.

Also, why I'm at it, how does this god presuppose logical laws? Without this god, are you saying that there wouldn't be laws?

Also, do you lack the imagination to think how we can exist without a creator? Also, how is this science?

You keep assuming that your explaination is the only possible one, but give no proof as to why. His proof is as valid as the unicorn analogies I keep listing above.

"Lastly, I will address my opponent's question regarding the validity"

:)

"In these two philosophies, the gods either lack transcendence" - It doesn't matter what they have or lack, what matters is if they exist or not. We're not transcendent or immutable, yet we still exist.

As an addition to my argument you clearly say "The Christian God on the other hand transcends the physical universe and he is perfect, thus accounting for the kinds of things necessary to know anything at all." - For something to transcend the physical universe, there is NO physical evidence to prove this in the universe.

:)

As far as the rest of the paragraph, you basically say that your philosophy is right and theirs is wrong because you're better than them. As I said before, absolute morality or immutable logical laws doesn't pertain to a deity's existence unless you try to affirm the consequent, which is a fallacy and therefore faulty logic. Without empirical evidence, their arguments are just as valid as yours.

:)

"To summarize this round, my opponent has yet to address my main argument. He has made many assertions and few arguments. However, he has one more opportunity to turn the tables. I open the floor to him and look forward to our final rounds."

No my friend it is completely reversed. Your whole argument is based about affirming that the Christian God can account for absolute morality, not whether the god actually exists. A hypothesis is not a fact.

This is why I have won this debate.

1) My opponent's argument is an argument from ignorance
2) My opponent's argument affirms the consequent
3) My opponent does not live up to his burden of proof
4) My opponent deems logical paradoxes as arguments from ignorance
5) He gives no physical evidence
6) The existence of god remains unproven

:)

If he happens to win this debate, it most likely won't be because he had a better debate but because he takes the favored side of the majority. Please put aside your biases and vote for who you think made a more reasonable argument.

I urge a CON ballot

Thank you

:)
KRFournier

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and eagerly look forward to the results. It has been enjoyable.

My opponent's main hang-up is his misguided belief that he is unbiased and neutral, as though he does not operate on assumptions. All people operate on assumption. In fact, all people MUST operate on assumptions because finite humans cannot infinitely appeal to a greater truth. When people assert a truth, it is expected that we ask "Why?" When they appeal to a greater truth, we can ask it again. We can keep doing this, but eventually, they will say, "Because it just is that way." Worldviews are a commonly understood and widely accept concept in philosophy. My opponent cannot imagine that people have these worldviews and therefore is the one guilty of arguing from lack of imagination.

I have been offering a version of a known proof of God, often referred to as the Transcendental Argument from God's Existence. [1] It was pioneered by Dr. Cornelius Van Til and improved upon by Dr. Greg Bahnsen. My opponent is quick to accuse me of making no argument and offering no proof. Indeed, my proof is out there for all to see. The fact that he doesn't comprehend it does not excuse him from having to refute it. He cannot say it is simply unimportant or inaccessible and hope to win by simply saying I haven't said anything meaningful.

Going back to my critique of the Argument from Evil he says, "He says that I have to support that Evil doesn't have to be both transcendent and immutable, but I'm not the one the claimed it was in the first place. He doesn't give any evidence as to why we should think such." I did indeed offer evidence of this. Again, using transcendental argumentation (a philosophically valid technique) I argued that objective Evil was the necessary precondition to make sense of it. For the argument to be meaningful, evil MUST be objective. If evil is not objective, then it is arbitrary and based on man's consensus. In that case, the argument sounds like this, "God cannot exist because what we THINK is evil exists." This is as ridiculous as saying, "God doesn't exist because liver & onions exists, and almost nobody likes liver & onions."

Recall that we are dealing with worldviews. Yes, I ASSUME God exists and he's revealed himself. My opponent ASSUMES only science brings knowledge and (most likely) that there is no supernatural reality. Carl Sagan is famous for saying the cosmos is all there is, ever was, or ever will be. How does he know? Has he seen beyond it? Of course not, this is an assumption. If even the great Carl Sagan makes assumptions, then they can't be merely dismissed. If assumptions are invalid starting points, then every single debate on this site is invalid.

If everyone makes assumptions, how do we know which ones are to be rejected? After all, not all assumptions can be true. Dr. Bahnsen developed three criteria by which a worldview could be accepted: it must rationally account for human experience, it must not be arbitrary, and it must be internally consistent. [2] The invisible, inaudible pink unicorn worldview fails immediately because it is arbitrary, and by this, I mean that there is no objective standard to which outsiders can appeal. Atheism is not arbitrary, as it appeals to the natural order, which everyone can observe. However, it fails on its internal consistency. Atheism asserts that no absolute abstract entities exist, yet absolute abstract entities are a necessary precondition for intelligent debate (as one example).

Christian theism does pass all three tests. It is internally consistent, able to account for the very things necessary to have meaning without borrowing from other worldviews. For example, the law of induction—which is necessary for scientific principles to be meaningful—can be justified by Christian presuppositions without having to appeal to a worldview in which God can't exist. It is not arbitrary, since the Bible (God's revelation, yes, another assumption) is externally available for all to observe and analyze. Finally, it can account for human experience. Absolute abstract entities such as universally binding logical and moral laws are intelligible and reliable in this worldview without having to borrow from another worldview.

For fear the readers believe my opponent's allegations that I am not offering a proof, I will say it again. The proof that God exists is because when we assume Christianity is true all necessary preconditions for human experience are met. When we assume atheism is true the necessary preconditions for human experience (and meaningful debate in particular) are not met. Since atheistic assumptions cannot be true, the atheist assumption that God does not exists is not true. Therefore, God exists.

Let me finally address my opponent's claim as to why he's won:

1) My opponent's argument is an argument from ignorance
Not true. I explained quite clearly that I understand the Argument from Evil. My opponent, on the other hand, does not comprehend presuppositional argumentation. Therefore, if anyone is guilty of arguing from ignorance, it is he.

2) My opponent's argument affirms the consequent
Not true. Transcendental arguments do not affirm the consequent so long as a single necessary precondition can be identified. Affirming the consequent occurs when saying "If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P." Transcendental arguments state, "P is the necessary precondition of Q. Q. Therefore, P." For example, I commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent when I say, "If Fire, then Oxygen. Oxygen. Therefore, Fire." Oxygen may exist for reason other than Fire. However, I can say, "Oxygen is the necessary precondition of Fire. Fire. Therefore, Oxygen." This is logically sound.

3) My opponent does not live up to his burden of proof
Yes I did, you just ignore it or declare it inaccessible. Ipse Dixit.

4) My opponent deems logical paradoxes as arguments from ignorance
I said, "I hope he's not arguing from lack of imagination, for he accuses me of this very thing later on." This was a tongue-in-cheek response to your accusations that I don't understand the Argument from Evil, which is false.

5) He gives no physical evidence
You assume this is the only acceptable kind of evidence without substantiation. You are in a philosophical trap here. I though you said assumptions can't prove anything? If your assumptions are allowed as a starting points, then so are mine.

6) The existence of god remains unproven
The readers will decide this.

Vote Pro. Thanks.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.butler-harris.org... (This link was down as of this writing, hope it's only temporary.)
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by diety 8 years ago
diety
First of all, I'm not trying to prove atheism, just the existence of the CHRISTIAN god. Therefore my evidence is contradictions in the attributes in which the christian god claims to have. Of course my argument of evil proves that a loving god can't exist and the christian god is claimed to be a loving god. It was the basis of the resolution.

:)
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
It's great to have you back Lightkeeper!
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
After a longish break from debate.org I'm back.
Nice debate, fellows.
However, after reading the debate, I have not been convinced of either side. Con did not present any evidence against the existence of a god. He attempted to rely on the good old Argument from Evil. However, that argument doesn't prove atheism. At its most, if it succeeds, it proves that a loving god can't exist. That was not the basis of the resolution.
Additionally, Con attempted to rely on lack of evidence for the existence of God. That's an appeal to ignorance, unless you can invoke an exemption. Con didn't.
Likewise, Pro has not proven the existence of a god. His claim that there must be a god because otherwise the laws of logic and nature wouldn't exist was not supported. It was asserted with no argument in support.

Scoring: all equal but Pro mounted a slightly better argument.

Guess I'll remain an atheist after all
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Hmmm. You've been a member for two months. You never debate. You have a history of making similar remarks on other religious debates. Where have I seen this behavior described before?

http://en.wikipedia.org....
Posted by unlikely 8 years ago
unlikely
There is little point in this debate.....
Clearly science , history has shown us that the traditional god concepts are overwhelmingly unlikely.
The debate quickly descends to semantics, thats all that religious nut jobs have left to cling to.
They go to bible schools and essentially learn debate skills. I dont blame them ...They have to.
The christian orthodoxy is not wishy washy nonsense about the possibility of god existing between the lines of a multiverse theory ...Its an alternate to science ( to some extent it use to be science) Its also patently hogwash. As the smart leave it ends up Dwindling to an ever decreasing number of desperate bigots.........
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Tarzan, I appreciate your comments. If anything, it shows that you understood my argument. Your comment is an example of the kind of rebuttal I would have expected. Instead, my opponent failed to understand the argument and merely claimed it was invalid. You, on the other hand, offer a reason why you think it was invalid. Of course, I think your wrong, but I'd rather not start a large debate with you on the subject in the comments.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Ironic that someone with my username would believe that, no? :D
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Lol @ LogicalMaster...

KRF, there are a couple issues I have with your position. First, is that theistic worldviews deliver objective morality. ALL moral systems are relativistic; some just have further relativistic notions built in. Consider that there are descriptive and judgmental components to moral reasoning. The first of these concerns the facts of a situation (Pete stabbed Mary twelve times). The second incorporates moral judgment (and it was wrong). However, in that gap between description and judgment is a necessary appeal to some standard for morality. In the end, ALL actors MUST make this appeal relativistically.

So the argument that atheistic worldviews don't deliver objective morality is completely moot...

Second, it seemed you were suggesting that God was one of the necessary prerequisites for debate to occur. I find this to be an extraordinary fallacious statement, as there is no (non-circular) grounds for asserting that God is a necessary condition for existence. In fact, in such situations, it is the burden of those claiming he IS a necessary condition to show that he MUST be, which I don't think can be done...

Just my two cents...
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
"Truth is built on proof, not assumptions."

How do you know this?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Nietzsche -"Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world."
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
dietyKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dietyKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
dietyKRFournierTied
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 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
dietyKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
dietyKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
dietyKRFournierTied
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:70