Debate: Does God Exist? # 6

where the universe came from, what the destiny of humans is, that you can automatically appeal to a greater unknown and say that some god did it.

That is a far greater rule of logic. You do not appeal, you do not prove an unknown by appealing to a greater unknown.

If you can simply keep that in mind and think about it. It is possible to live with uncertainty.

It may not be comfortable, you may not like it, it may cause you some pain, but you can live with uncertainty and we derive meaning from our life, from our interaction with each other and we are moral because it is the right thing to do.

If someone says that they are moral only because they believe in a god, if they will not rape, murder, rob only because they believe in a god, then

I want them to go right on believing in a god. But I would submit to you that there are higher reasons for doing that.

And I am out of time. I thank you very much. We are looking forward to some questions. Thank you,

Evan Hagen. All right, here we go.

Well, I hope that you guys really are listening to the issue of the debate here. I mean, humor aside, and maybe we can kind of banter around jokes and have fun.

I love having fun. I really do. Usually at other people's expense, my wife says, but hey, you know, she is not here.

But I like to debate and I like the issue and use of logic. On my radio show, which I have, a radio show, five days a week, people call me up and I say, that is a logical fallacy known as this or that or this.

And they are surprised that a Christian would do this that much. Why? Because I use it all the time to demonstrate truth and to expose error.

Now, I have given a rational argument for God's existence using logical absolutes. I have not heard

Edwin refute the argument. He has said that logic simply exists because we made it up.

But I have already addressed that and have already refuted that. It is not the product of human minds because human minds are different.

And if I make up the idea that if I am six feet tall, my last name is Slick, and I am debating an atheist, I automatically win.

I made it up. Does it make it true? No. The argument just is not valid.

Now, invisible pink unicorns, good. I mean, sorry, I keep saying that because that is what atheists would call it.

And I do know that he says invisible unicorns, not pink ones. I am glad that you used logic. I am glad that you did.

It just further demonstrates that, you know, you know what it is. But, you see,

I have given an argument for God. Let me summarize it. Logic is conceptual.

It is absolute. It is transcendent. Logic is a process of the mind. Do you know of any concept that exists without a mind?

Well, since a person's concepts reflect his mind, and logical absolutes, those concepts that they are, are transcendent and absolute, we should have a transcendent and absolute mind authoring them.

It is perfectly logical to conclude that. If it is not, demonstrate why using logic. Give me a better option.

If you can't, sit down. Now, did anyone in here hear me use the arguments that Edwin raised, that sometimes

Christians use? For example, the argument from authority. I don't use that argument, the argument from authority, unless it's from God, because he's the final authority, but we're not arguing from that perspective right now.

The argument from ignorance. I didn't argue that either. I did not use the argument of design.

Did anybody hear me mention design? I have focused on the issues of logic. Something we all agree with, we all understand is there.

We use them when we fight with our boyfriend or girlfriend's wife. You said this yesterday. You use them.

Okay, account for them from your worldview. I don't want to account for them. Okay, don't account for them. I can't.

The atheist perspective cannot. Hence, Christian theism is established as being true.

Now, oh, another one. I did not say that God exists because the

Bible says he does. I did not use that argument. There's so many things I want to say.

I don't have much time. Bronze Age culture. A lot of times I've heard

Edwin say that because it came from the Bronze Age culture, therefore, we've got to be careful of it.

It's mythical, this ancient time. That's called the genetic fallacy. In other words, look where it came from.

It can't be good because of where it came from. So I guess the Bronze Age, which says don't commit adultery, well, we can't trust that either, can we?

Or just not murder. Bronze Age people thought of that. Oh, well, it's from that era. It's called a genetic fallacy.

It does not work in debate. You use that, you lose because it's not logical.

You can't commit logical fallacies and try and win a debate. Now, I did not appeal either that logic is an unknown because he said, thank you, don't appeal to an unknown by using a greater unknown.

I didn't do that. Logic is not an unknown. Logic is not an unknown.

So I did not appeal to one unknown and then go to a greater unknown. I have used logic and deduced

God's existence from it. If I have failed to do that, I'm waiting for Mr.

Kagan to demonstrate that. He has not. Thank you. We'll take a ten -minute break.

We'll come back and they will question each other. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to go ahead and resume the debate tonight.

Again, debating the question does God exist with Reverend Matt Slick and Edward Kagan. Some information for you.

Edwin, not Edward. Edwin Kagan would like you to know that you can find his information or you can go to his website at www .atheist

.org. No, that's for American atheists. That's for American atheists. You can also go to his personal website at www .edwinkagan

.com. And then he has an additional website that you can frequent at www .answersinatheism

.net. He also has a radio show. So if you'd like additional information from Edwin, please see him after the debate is over.

In addition, Reverend Slick has some cards here again for his ministry, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, CARM, at www .carm

.org. Those cards are available as well. This debate wouldn't have happened tonight without the work of Zachary Cougar.

If Zachary would stand up, we'd give him a round of applause for having this debate. And Zachary would like you to know that he operates a ministry here on the campus of the

University of West Florida and that if you have any questions that you'd like to direct to him or anything that you'd like to get to him, if you'll fill out just an index card, come up after it's over, fill that out, get them to Zachary, and then he will make every effort to get in contact with you, either pro or con, taking whatever position it is that you take.

We're now going to resume the debate, and we will have a series of alternating questions. We'll begin with Reverend Slick.

He will ask the first question. Edwin will have two minutes to respond, and then Reverend Slick will have a one -minute counter to that, and we'll volley back and forth.

And then we'll move into the audience questions. So be thinking of those. We'll have you come up to the microphone for audio purposes, and you can ask those, and we'll carry that on as long as we deem it profitable and good.

So, Edwin, or Matt. All right. Edwin, maybe if you would like, could you try and offer me an explanation of the existence of logical absolutes one more time from your atheistic perspective?

Can you do that? Here's the thing, Matt. Everything we do, everything we know, all human creations that are not biological are made by us, except for things in the natural world, the gold, the silver, the copper, the salt in the ocean, and so on.

Our religious texts, our philosophies, all made by us.

As Aristotle said, man is the measure of all things. As Alexander Pope, English poet, said,

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan. The proper study of mankind is man.

You want to know where logic came from? Look at the history of thought. I'm sure it was very logical to some primitive people who didn't know any numbers above three.

If someone hit you, you hit them back. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Primitive moral codes.

Some people, I used the example earlier today of smoking. Smoking was just fine.

Everyone did it in the movies. Heroes did it. Now they don't do it. Why? Because they've learned better as a culture and as a society.

And it is similar with the rules of logic. They have been developed by people over time and by agreement.

Not everybody agrees on all rules of logic. I'm sure that the people arguing for the principles of Islam will use a different type of logic than what you are touting here.

Or if they use the same logic, come up with a very different conclusion. And if there was anything really important about that human invention, they really ought to all be the same, shouldn't they?

Which leads me to my question for Matt. May I ask my question for Matt? Oh, you get a chance to reply.

One minute rebuttal. Yes, okay. You didn't answer where logic came from. You said that it's just something that we thought up.

Well, I've already addressed that 15 times. And I'm not going to get into that. If people are going to disagree on what the principles of logic are, then all

I've got to do is disagree with them. And if they stop being true, then their nature wouldn't be true. We wouldn't have any way of judging what is right or wrong if it depends upon vote and mutual agreement.

That's not how logic works. Period. Robert and Matt, if that is true as you say, then how do you know that Zeus doesn't exist?

How do you know that the whole pantheon of Egyptian gods don't exist? How do you know that the two unicorns at Camp Carmel don't exist?