It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

The final round has finally come! I thank you omar for taking part in this debate and I hope all who view this can truly take the evidence where it leads. Now I want to take you back to my contentions of this round: 1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist) 2. There is good reason for Theism 1. In the first contention I asked Con to make the case against God and bring evidence to back this claim. I clearly made this rule in round one at the beginning: "In this debate we are debating Theism vs Atheism and so there must be reasons to support both sides, Meaning that there must be a statement of fact by both sides, Not just a statement of unbelief as agnosticism. " And so, By that rule we must be proving for and Against God's existence. The following round Con stated that his belief resided in a more agnostic Atheism, Which I then asked if that would affect his side for God does not exist. It seems since then that Con has swayed from the original debate guidelines and gone for a one-sided approach, Demanding and rebutting evidence from Pro for Theism, But not providing evidence for Atheism or God not existing. Unfortunately, At best for Con the debate is 50-50 given there is no evidence for his side. Debates are meant to be two sided exchanges of information, Not a one-sided approach. 2. Now to my second Contention. In this debate I have presented the deductive argument for God named the Kalam Cosmological Argument: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause P2: The universe began to exist C: Therefore, The universe has a cause A deductive argument is an absolute statement, Meaning if the premises are true, Then the conclusion is true. Here is my overall responses to Con"s objections in today's debate: R = Response: 1. "Believing in God is illogical. God is given so many titles it would be difficult to explain how God exists or might even be impossible. " R: My response to this point was essentially dropped. Titles do not make something illogical, As the numerous titles of a black hole do not make it illogical. 2. "We as humans cannot fathom knowing that much inform. That is why God is illogical. " R: As agreed upon earlier, God is not a human and so he can do things beyond our abilities. Back holes for example have the power to take in all matter (including light) within a certain distance. Nothing else in the universe (including humans) can harness that power, But that doesn"t make black holes illogical. The same is true with God 3. "Circular reasoning but it does make sense. " R: No proof for your side. I can simply counter assert that it is illogical to disbelieve in God and say it makes sense. Kalam Cosmological Argument: To premise 1, 1. (we don"t know everything so it can"t be true) R: You do not have to know everything to know something. Black holes for example are still largely unknown phenomena. We know that they exist and have the property of great gravitational forces, But we cannot see them or explain what really happens in them. 2. Cause is not sufficient grounds to explain the existence of God R: Review the Attributes of God. I showed in the past debate, This cause to the universe has certain attributes (spaceless, Timeless, All-powerful, All-knowing, Etc) that would only this cause God. This was largely unresponded to and I hope Con finally recognizes this. To premise 2 "I agree if this is the only reality. If there alternative realities do not exist then this would be right. I think infinite is tagged on to thing because we have not found an answer to it. " R: Here I responded that in any reality, Infinities could not exist. Just like a married bachelor, An infinite is a paradox that contradicts itself and cannot exist. This is even well known and explained by scientist (most well known being David Hilbert) to be only an abstract idea and not a real principle of any reality. The impact here as most scientist agree is that the universe had a beginning. To the Conclusion: "A beginning can happen without a being with perfect power, Wisdom, Goodness. " R: Sure, But as I pointed out out in my earlier responses this cause has these attributes "Evolution explains everything" R: My response here is simple, As Con agreed in round four, That evolution does not explain itself. "Bigbang is the cause" R: The Bigbang does not explain itself. This is just like saying a painting caused itself or anything really, Caused itself. No physical thing can cause itself. Instead something most have created the bigbang. "Why can't the laws be the cause? " R: As I pointed out earlier, Laws are literally created and cannot create. "We need outstanding evidence to prove God" R: Con seemed to agree to my response here, As this simply does not pan out to reality. We can prove amazing things without amazing evidence. Black holes for example. "The Bible has Flaws" R: Not relevant to this debate, All religion is: Man"s response to God. We are just debating if God exists, Not what Religion is true. "God needs a cause" R: This ignores the necessity of a causeless creator. First Con did not respond to the impossibility of infinites and so the causes of the universe cannot go on forever. Using my train analogy from earlier, Saying that God needs a cause is like saying a train engine needs an engine. We know that that is not true as an engine is all that is needed to pull a train. The universe is like a serious of a finite line of train cars and God is the engine that put it all into motivation. These objections really do not disprove the KCA nor my conclusions of it. In this final round my two contentions still stand and hopefully the case for truth has become clear. To Truth! -logicae