When Christians and Atheists engage in debate, they almost always do so within an evidentialist framework. This means that they rely heavily on empirical data and inductive reasoning to support their claims. For example, a Christian might argue for the truth of Christianity based on the historical reliability of the Bible or the resurrection of Christ. Conversely, an Atheist might argue for evolution as an alternative to the Biblical account of creation, thinking it renders religious belief obsolete. Both arguments, however, presuppose the validity of induction and the laws of logic. What is often neglected in these discussions is a more foundational question: What justifies the very tools we are using to reason with?
When a person uses logic or induction to argue, they are assuming certain transcendental realities. These include the laws of logic (such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middle), mathematical truths, moral principles, and even the reliability of sense perception. All of these are taken as given - fixed, universal, and binding upon everyone. But the deeper issue lies at the paradigmatic level: What is the ontological foundation for such realities? Why should we assume, in a godless universe, that such laws exist or that they are binding?
So, my first question to my opponent is this: How do you justify your use of logic in this debate to draw any conclusions at all? Are the laws of logic merely social constructs? Or perhaps they emergent properties of matter?
When you answer that question, you also come into the problem of induction. Science and everyday reasoning both depend heavily on induction: we observe consistent patterns in nature and assume that they will continue in the future. Why should you - as an atheist - assume this? What is your basis for believing that nature will behave tomorrow as it did today, and thus basing your entire worldview on this?
Thus my second question to my opponent is this: In a completely random, purposeless, chaotic, and godless universe, what justification do you have for trusting that the future will resemble the past, and that the laws of nature will remain consistent?
Lastly, the very debate we have presumes that truth exists, that it is objective, and that you and I are capable of recognizing it. We are engaging in this debate because we both believe it is possible to present an argument - which corresponds to reality - which hopefully will change our beliefs for the better.
My final question to my opponent is this: Do you believe, in your worldview, that human thought is reduced to nothing more than biochemical reactions in the brain? If you do, then on what basis can you claim that your conclusions are objectively true - or that mine are objectively false?
Now, I will present my first argument for the existence of God, which is based on the transcendental necessity of the laws of logic:
P1: Fundamental principles of logic, which form our basis of reasoning and rational thought, do exist, are necessary, universal, and immaterial.
P2: These principles cannot be grounded in anything material, or contingent, since that which is material or contingent is not necessary, not universal, and not invariant.
P3: These principles cannot be grounded in our minds alone, because our minds are not necessary, not universal, and not invariant.
P4: The only sufficient ground for these fundamental principles to exist, is if they exist within a mind which is necessary, universal, and immaterial.
P5: God, as traditionally understood in classical theism, is the only being which fits this description.
C1: Therefore, the existence of logical absolutes presupposes the existence of God.
C2: Thus, the very act of reasoning (which uses logic) presupposes God's existence.
Looking forward to your response.
Sorry for these happenings. I try to improve . Thats all.
Vote:@same1234 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
it was pretty good arguments
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocations, instead merely stating that one side had good arguments” and the other side did not. Each point allocation must be justified with specific examples taken from the debate.
**************************************************
>Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
con's argument is perfect, he is asking for facts, myths are not acceptable.
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocations, instead merely stating that one side is “perfect” and implying that the other side presents only myths with their argument. Each point allocation must be justified with specific examples taken from the debate.
**************************************************
Please remove jonrohith's vote. It's not even my debate but it pains me to see him make a vote while so obviously having not read the debate at all.