The Evidence Points to Atheism

Non-Cognitivism Con drops his previous arguments for a new one. Con says the argument is contradictory. However it's clearly false because his argument assumes that not knowing something is the same as knowing it. For example, let my say there's a "hfgu". What do we know about this "hfgu"? Nothing! If Con was correct we must have knowledge of “hfgu”, because to say we have no knowledge of this hfgu is to say that we do have knowledge of it! To take it further. Con must say we have all knowledge of the universe, because to say there's something in the universe which we don't know, is to know about what is unknown! Is this a contradiction? Well, no it's not because knowing something and not knowing something are two different things. All I have to show is that we that we know that we don't know(different from actually knowing what it is). This has been done. Con would also have to be saying God is knowable. He has yet to demonstrate this. Con would also be throwing away the definition of God as proposed by the Catholic Church. My main argument hasn't been refuted. Con's case. Anthropic Principle. Con again drops his argument and misrepresents Stephen Hawking. Con is referring to Hawking when he said “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, they universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size” [1] Hawking is talking about the rate of expansion, not how close the Earth is to the Sun nor how big the Earth is! Even if Con is proposing this as an argument for the fine tuning of the Universe, it still doesn't work because Hawking was just explaining the flatness problem. Later he actually explained why the rate of expansion was so “fine tuned” “Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen.” The problem was solved by inflationary theory. So, Con misquotes a quote mine by Hawking. Rare liquid argument Con is missing the point. If the chemicals that make up liquid are abundant, then liquid wouldn't be the rarest form of matter! Con also ignored the evidence that shows the early Universe had liquid. L.O.T. Argument Con drops most of my rebuttals here and just claims E=mc^2 is false. It's not false at all, it's been proven and is accepted as fact by current physics [2] [3]. He also says there must be a finite amount of it. This is an irrelevant red herring fallacy, because I've already shown models that give an explanation of the Universe's energy. He then presents another argument, which my LOT responses work against. His new argument has a new problem that the others didn't suffer from. "For the transcendent cause must be immaterial, and there are two things which fit such a description: abstract objects or Minds. But abstract objects don't stand in causal relations, they don't fit our criteria for existence, hence the cause of the universe must be an ultra-mundane mind." Minds don't have the ability to have causal relations! They can only cause thoughts inside its own head. I challenge Con to post his next argument using nothing but his mind alone. You can't do it, you can think of responses to give, but you can't affect anything. Con can get away from this by saying the mind is special and can cause things. This would be committing the special pleading fallacy, as I can say an abstract object is also special in this way! My other aguments against the LOT work against this one too My opponent’s arguments have been refuted. I don't know how you say that when you dropped most of your arguments and didn't answer all of mine. The resolution is affirmed Back to Con Sources _____________________________________________________________________________ [1] http://sqentropy.dyndns.org... [2] http://www.drphysics.com... [3] http://www.youtube.com... Video