Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Strong Atheism

First off, if "philosophically superior" implies, in part, compliance in logic and reason, then there is no reason for your disclaimer that we can't know anything with 100% certainty because some people don't accept logic and reason. Your understanding of the resolution makes it clear that logic and reason apply within the context of the debate. However, that is just a side issue. The bulk of your arguments are addressed below. <--LOGIC--> p1- Theres nothing about the traditional Judeo-Christian god that requires he be transcendent. p2- Again, omnipresence isn't required. The traditional Judeo-Christian god, as presented in the bible and in popular discourse, is obviously always looking over the shoulders of his disciples, in some cases even able to read their thoughts at all times. However, as far as we know, this planet is the entire extent of Christianity. We could be the lone intelligence in the universe. Thus god need not be omnipresent but simply capable of monitoring us at all times. p3-5- Even granted the first two premises, why must a being exist only within space and time OR beyond space and time? There must be some boundary between them. Can god not exist on both sides of the boundary? My opponent has provided no reasoning to explain why these propositions are mutually exclusive. Overall I find most, if not all, of the premises in this argument lacking. Unless my opponent can defend them adequately this argument fails. <--SCIENCE--> p1- See my objections to the logical argument. Omni-anything is not a requirement of the Judeo-Christian god. Extreme quantities of any and all qualities is sufficient p2-4- My opponent offers one interpretation of quantum uncertainty and the observer effect. It is a somewhat mystical interpretation. However, the basis for the observer effect is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that you cannot know a particle's position and velocity exactly. The more precisely you know one, the less precisely you know the other. This is the origin of quantum uncertainties to begin with. Consider how we measure the velocity and position of particles- we bounce things off of them, usually photons. With larger objects, the added energy is so small that it makes no difference whatsoever. With subatomic particles, however, the added energy actually makes a noticeable difference in the properties in question. If you measure the position precisely you interfere with the velocity and vice-versa. Thus, quantum wave functions collapse upon measurement because we gain more specific knowledge in that area, while losing it in another area. Since god is not measuring these particles, but simply knows everything about them through mystical means, the observer effect would not hold for him. Even if Geo is granted his conception of the observer effect, it is irrelevant. Granting that all quantum wave functions are collapsed from the point of view of god, it doesn't follow that we share that knowledge, or that OUR measurements should be different based on his knowledge. Again, unless my opponent can salvage his premises this argument fails. <--PHILOSOPHY--> First, it has been shown that the universe is not closed [1]. Second, again, god need not be infinite, and furthermore there is no reason why multiple infinities cannot exist. There are larger and smaller infinities. There are positive and negative infinities. If such things are possible there is no basis to deny multiple infinities existing. <--FINAL NOTES--> The logical argument from evil fails. The evidential argument from evil is successful only in proving that god probably does not exist, which is what I affirm as a weak atheist. I accept that it is extremely unlikely god exists, but I do not claim to know this, because there is really no way to acquire such knowledge. The arguments my opponent has presented make unwarranted assumptions about the nature of god. They affirm extreme properties in him that are not actually inherent in the popular Judeo-Christian conception. Unless he can give such assumptions warrant, he has failed to show the logical or evidential basis for strong atheism.