“Second is the argument from meaning:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then no sentence has any meaning. And he says that all the sentences in his own book are in fact meaningless.
# But, premise (1) has meaning. We all understood it.
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Fifth is the argument from freedom:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not do anything freely. Everything is determined.
# But, I can freely agree or disagree with premise (1). From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Sixth is the argument from purpose:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not plan to do anything.
# But, I planned to come to tonight’s debate. That is why I am here. From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Finally, the argument from personal existence - this is perhaps the coup de grace against naturalism:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not exist. He says there are no selves, there are no persons, no first-person perspectives.
# But, I do exist! I know this as certainly as I know anything. From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“First is the argument from intentionality:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I cannot think about anything. That is because there are no intentional states.
# But I am thinking about naturalism. From which it follows,
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.
So, if you think that you ever think about anything you should conclude that naturalism is false.”

“Modern positivism…expresses criticism against the naïve use of certain terms… by the general postulate that the question whether a given sentence has any meaning… should always be thoroughly and critically examined. This… is derived from mathematical logic. The procedure of natural science is pictured as an attachment of symbols to the phenomena. The symbols can, as in mathematics, be combined according to certain rules… However, a combination of symbols that does not comply with the rules is not wrong but conveys no meaning.
The obvious difficulty in this argument is the lack of any general criterion as to when a sentence should be considered meaningless. A definite decision is possible only when the sentence belongs to a closed system of concepts and axioms, which in the development of natural science will be rather the exception than the rule. In some case the conjecture that a certain sentence is meaningless has historically led to important progress… new connections which would have been impossible if the sentence had a meaning. An example… sentence: "In which orbit does the electron move around the nucleus?"”

“What can we say about metaphysical naturalism? Again, I want to make two points.
# My arguments for the existence of God show that metaphysical naturalism is not true. There is a personal, transcendent reality beyond the physical universe.
# Secondly, I think that metaphysical naturalism is so contrary to reason and experience as to be absurd.
In the following arguments, the first premise in every case is taken from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rosenberg Dr. Rosenberg]’s own book.”

“What can we say about metaphysical naturalism? Again, I want to make two points.
# My arguments for the existence of God show that metaphysical naturalism is not true. There is a personal, transcendent reality beyond the physical universe.
# Secondly, I think that metaphysical naturalism is so contrary to reason and experience as to be absurd.
In the following arguments, the first premise in every case is taken from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rosenberg Dr. Rosenberg]’s own book.”

“Seventh is the argument from enduring:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not endure for two moments of time.
# But, I have been sitting here for more than a minute. If you think that you are the same person who walked into the room tonight then you should agree that:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“If the meanings of true and false were switched, this sentence wouldn't be false.”