I have asked for what kind of evidence you would like me to present. Please explain.
Unbiased, verifiable, and unambiguous evidence, like the evidence for evolution or gravity. Facts; not claims or hearsay. Experiments; not anecdotes and other unverifiable claims. Get it now?
Thank you for the clarification.
1. Everything that exists has an explanation (either in a external source or in the necessity of its nature)
I suppose the unbiased evidence for this claim is all of science. Science operates on this principle, a principle that has proved itself many times over. I am unaware of anything existing inexplicably. Of course, if something did exist inexplicably, I would like to know what it is and why that thing exists inexplicably while it would appear everything else does have some form of explanation. As a result of repeated experiments resulting in explanations, I am epistemically justified to hold this as true until shown good reason not to do so.
2. If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God
Scientific evidence continues to solidify the fact that the universe had a beginning approximately 13.8 billion years ago. This makes is highly probable that the universe is contingent, thereby requiring an external cause. Since we both agree that an infinite regress is to be avoided, this would require some necessary thing to stop an infinite regress of contingent things.
If switching the term 'God' for 'necessary thing', then go for it. The point is the universe is contingent and infinite regress should be avoided, therefore something necessary exists.
Premise 3 we agree on and 4 and 5 follow logically. If I have to explain the validity of modus ponens
, we might as well end now and I debate with a reasonable person.
Remember, a good argument will use premises that are more plausible than their denial. Denying premise 1 means you believe things can exist without explanation. So it this your position? If not, then you have to accept this premise as more plausibly true.
Denying premise 2 could mean you think the universe exists either necessarily or inexplicably. Are you defending this position? Or are you denying the need for a necessary thing to end an infinite regress of contingent things? Please explain why the denial of any premise is more plausible than accepting the premises as true.
In regards to logic, logic is one way by which to prove something.
Wrong. Wanna see why? One sec.
S1 = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 (...)
How much is that? You might be thinking "0" or "1", but you'd be wrong. It's actually 1/2. Wanna see?
1 - S1 = 1-(1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 (...))
1 - S1 = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1 (...)
1 - S1 = S1
1 = 2S1
Now, is this true? The answer is "yes, logically". Is it physically possible? No. You can't add up integers and end up with a fraction.
There are other paradoxes, but, hopefully, you get my point.
Basically you argument against logic is this:
If I demonstrate a mathematical paradox, then logic cannot prove anything
I have demonstrated a mathematical paradox
Therefore, logic cannot prove anything
The irony of trying to discredit logic with logic is duly noted. You use the law of non-contradiction to form your first premise and modus ponens
to come to a deduce your conclusion. The more you fight against logic, the more it proves itself.
Even granting the truth of your mathematical demonstration, the only entailment is that logic, in this particular case, is not valid. It does follow that all logical arguments are faulty. Fact of the matter, logic has a long and useful history of success.
If the point to discredit all logic, then there is no possibility for a reasonable discussion and the debate should end here. Otherwise, please now provide counterarguments.