Atheism is An Untenable Position

(A) Understanding What I Mean by the Resolution While I am not concerned withdefinitionsfor atheism here (see 1.1), I think a passing comment on the clarity of my positionin regards to atheismbeing an"untenable position"are in order. By 'untenable', I merely mean to say that the given position (i.e. atheism) cannot be held consistently given the consideration of existing counter-factuals. These counter-factuals take their form apart from calling the atheist "deluded", or "confused", but rather their position as "un-holdable", so to speak.I will demonstrate that the atheist has a problem of epistemology.In other words, he cannot substantiate his position with justified reasons for the non-existence of God, and as such mere agnosticism is far more of a humble position then the atheist he claims to have. I am not suggesting however that the BoP do disprove the existence of God is so great that it simply can't be done (e.g. the inability to prove a universal negative); it is clearly tenable that theism is a falsifiable claim (able to considered false - e.g, 'God does exist'). Let us then turn to defining properly how I will understand atheism for the remainder of our debate.(1.1) Defining Atheism I will be defining atheism as, "'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; 2004). According to the Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology (The Origins of American English Words) on the origins of the word 'atheism', it writes: "(n.) 1587, borrowed from Middle French atheisme, from Greek atheos denying the gods (a- without + theos a god + Middle French -isme -ism) - atheist n. 1571, borrowed from Middle French atheiste, from Greek atheos + Middle French -iste -ist. (cp. 1995, p. 44)On an equally relevant issue, there are different types of atheists. Some atheists make the strong claim that there is no God. Other atheists make the claim that the concept of God is incoherent. Still others take the softer claim that there is no evidence for God and as a result, they do not believe in God. The last position is wrongly casting the burden of proof on the theist and actually modifying the definition of atheism from its historical meaning. The first form of atheism is significantly overstating what the atheist's information allows him to assert. The middle position is part of a longstanding debate on the coherence of theism; almost any good Systematic Theology addresses this challenge. Though I don't think the matter istotally relevant, I will be defining theism for the sake of my opponent's insight.(1.2) Defining TheismTo be clear, I am not advocating a view of pantheism (could also be considered 'naturalistic theism'), or panentheism ('All in God'), but rather theism. I will define theism as the following:"Theism believes that one infinite, personal God is the ultimate reality... this God created the universe, disclosed Himself to mankind, and gets involved with this world and us, unprompted by any force outside Himself. He is transcendent over the world and immanent (currently present and active) within it" (R. Cornish, '5 Minute Apologist'; cp. 2005, p. 78)In this first affirmative, I will be stating that the claim of theism is a far more tenable position than that of atheism, and agnosticism constitutes itself more humblythan the latter as opposed to the former. To summarize my position then, I take this to be a true proposition:(1.a) God does exist.In this debate, I will not be arguing for the existence of God since the argument I intend to use does not constitue as a particular "proof" for His existence. However, I do believe a substantial case for my above proposition (1.a) could be made in a passing order. (1.3) Substantiating Theism in Brief I take this to be a true proposition:(1.b) Unless there were an infinite being, there could be no finite beings.Consider Winfried Corduan when he writes, "In the chain of contingent beings that are mutually dependent on each other, there are only two options. Either there is a cause outside of the chain that actualizes the potential without being actualized by it, or there simply are no contingent beings" (see W. Corduan, Ibid. p. 214). He later then writes, "If an entity is dependent for its being on another entity, which itself is dependent on another entity, it does not matter how long a chain of mutually dependent entities you create or whether you link all of these things in a circle; unless there is an entity outside the chain, you will never get an actual being. And since we know that contingent beings exist, there must be such a being." (Ibid. p. 214).For this to be possible (i.e. contingent beings), a being like the one listed in (1.a-5.e) must exist:(1.a) Not restricted by time or space2.b) Cannot be changed by anything other than itself(3.c) Did not have a beginning in time(4.d) Does not need things other than itself to continue its existence(5.e) Whose attributes are not influenced by other things (which means that it has essential attributes, not accidental ones).(2.1) Atheism as an Untenable PositionMy argument can be ranfrom an analogy:Imagine a circle. What is in the circle represents all that is. The atheist is claiming that there is nothing in that circle that is God. To be able to make that claim, the atheist would have to have exhaustive knowledge of everything,- God-like knowledge. Since the atheist does not and can not have that kind of knowledge, he can not reasonably make the claimthat he holds. This is a direct challenge to the Universal Negative proposition (see 2.2) that is being asserted. The Theist, however, is merely claiming that somewhere in all that is, a being that is recognized and believed to be God exists. This is a much more humble claim. Now this is not a proof of God as stated earlier,but it is a way to challenge the overreaching claim made by the atheist. If the atheist recognizes the validity and weight of this argument, the atheist should move to agnosticism. (2.2) The Possibility of Proving a Universal Negative It is an often heard assertion in regards to the existence of God. In other words, no atheist can disprove the existence of God, but that is in the same way you can’t prove a universal negative. However, mathematically such a statement is utterly absurd. In William Dunham’s “A Mathematical Universe” (1997) he writes:"Some of the greatest, most profound mathematical arguments demonstrate that certain numbers, certain shapes,certain geometric constructions do not and cannot exist. And such nonexistence is established using the most incisiveweapon of all: cold, hard logic" (cp. 1997, p. 123).Inother words according to Dunham, “Mathematicians know better” (Ibid. 123). Even more so, the maxim "You can't prove a universal negative" is self-refuting (the statement is a universal negative). (3.1) Concluding ThoughtsTo conclude this debate, I leave the BoP on my opponent to show that atheism is atenable position, and that knowledge as such can be substantiated by what ever means he wishes to employ. I urge a vote in the affirmation.