My friend Matt Siple and I have begun a debate about God. Matt is arguing for the existence of God. I am countering and, to a certain extent, arguing against. You can follow the debate’s progress by starting with Matt’s post on the Absurdity of the Converse, which is the following argument:
The case for God that I maintain is that without Him, I wouldn’t be able to make a case for anything. The proof of the existence of God is the absurdity of the converse. The atheist has no rational way to account for universal abstracts, particularly laws of thought (e.g. laws of logic, moral absolutes). Any use of the immaterial cannot be explained by the atheist.
My rebuttal can be found at autoDogmatic. A clip for the curious:
AotC strikes me as an argument that presumes the conclusion (Perhaps the fallacy of many questions). Said differently, for someone who believes in God, the idea that God does not exist must be absurd.
One reply on “Debate on God”
I’m not sure what made me think of this, but I decided to dig it up. Sorry excuse for a debate, huh (especially since it was my idea, yeesh)?
For a brief response to the quote above, that’s almost right. I was arguing for the necessity of God as a precondition for arguments. Arguments need immaterial laws to work. We must assume that A will never equal ~A (among other things). I’m taking this a step further and saying that we must assume God to make any sense at all. It can appear like a big leap, but it’s not.
Anyway, I hope you’re doing well. Congrats on baby #2 (soon?). I’d love to catch up sometime. I work in Lawrenceville now, so I could meet you half way for lunch. Shoot me an email.