Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Strong Atheism

It's definitely exceeded my expectations in terms of excitement and engagement. Unfortunately, in no way does the Wikipedia article entitled "Monotheism" prove, or even assert, as far as I can tell, that a monotheistic god *requires* the four omni's. I can see why my opponent would make this claim, as it makes his job (justifying the claim that he knows no god exists) a lot easier. However, that is simply proving a certain type of god doesn't exist (which I agree with- a god possessing the "omnis" cannot exist). However, a God not possessing them is possible and therefore can't be eliminated so easily. To claim by fiat that god must posses them is yet another attempt by my opponent to avoid defending the statements made in the forums. Again, I agree 100% that a god possessing all four "omni" traits is impossible. This debate has greater scope than that. <---MOAR LOGIC---> Granting my opponent that some form of transcendence is necessary, insofar as god is not identical to the universe or subsumed within it, that is still no justification for god being completely seperate from it. Asyour bible quotes show, he was never considered to be. Transcendence does not have to mean that a being cannot exist anywhere in space. Premise three, in asserting such, fails. Imagine, for example, how a sphere would appear in a 2-dimensional universe. Some cross section of it would appear in this "flatland" while the majority of it would still exist outside of it, thus "transcending" flatland. Theres no reason this can't be the case with god in a 3-d universe, although it is obviously a lot harder for us to picture. As my opponent has provided no reasoning to back up his assertion regarding transcendence meaning entirely seperate, there is no reason to accept it. Again, he is trying to define god out of existence by fiat. *IF* god must be both omnipresent and transcendent, and *IF* transcendence must mean completely seperate from the universe, then sure, that god cannot exist. However, there is no reason to assume that such a god is the only possible one, or even the most popular conception. <---MOAR SCIENCE---> If my opponent would read his own sources, he would see that, while my mention of the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle may have been superfluous, my analysis was still for the most part accurate: "A commonly debated use of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrï¿½dinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed. However, most quantum physicists,[who? ] in resolving Schrï¿½dinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. "[1] This becomes clear when we read about the most famous experiment done confirming the observer effect, the double slit experiment. Without an "observer" electrons shot one by one at the double slit set up STILL formed an interference pattern on the other side. Observe what happens next: "physicists put up a measuring device – an observer – next to the plate to see which [slit] the electron really went through. Amazingly, the electrons returned to behaving like particles again, creating two vertical lines on the back wall. The simple act of observing the quantum world actually changed the outcome! "[2] The measuring device, which physically interfered with the electron, caused the quantum superpositions to collapse. God would have no need for measuring devices or to interact with the electron at all. He could simply "know" that it was in a state of quantum superposition (or its particular location, depending on your interpretation of the physics). In either case, god's knowledge would NOT effect our measurements here on earth. Geo wants to imply that some heretofore unknown force emanating from consciousness is able to somehow effect particles, whereas I offer a much more sober interpretation supported by the data. The act of observation (by humans) requires physical interference and it is this interference that collapses quantum superpositions. God would have no need to interfere with the particles; he could simply "know" because he's god. Therefore god's knowledge would not cause an observer effect at all. <---MOAR PHILOSOPHY---> Again, Geo has ignored my statements in favor of his own interpretations of the facts, again to his advantage. Indeed, infinity is meant to be "without limit" or "without boundary". It would seem that two infinite beings could not coexist. However, in physics "the symbol for infinity is used [. .. ] simply as a shorthand for 'very big number'" [3] In other words, when a physicist says the universe may be infinite, they mean that they don't know how big it is. That's it. In math, there can be positive and negative infinities, as well as larger and smaller ones [4] The commonsense intuition about infinity to which he appeals is not the concept used in technical fields. If you add to that the fact that there's no reason for god to be infinite either (except, again, Geo's fiat) you find that you cannot logically disprove god this way. Its impossible for god to exist if you define god and the universe to be infinite in the sense that geo wants. That's it. But its not enough to disprove any possible god or even the majority of them since as far as I know neither god nor the universe are defined as infinite the way he defines them in normal discourse. <---CONCLUDING REMARKS---> Geo has made a valiant effort in proving that some conceptions of god are impossible. However, this is *not* sufficient for strong atheism. A weak atheist would agree completely that some conceptions of god are impossible, and indeed I do. The difference between the two is that strong atheism asserts that there is no god. Period. However, throughout the course of this debate, I have shown that changing the purported attributes of god only slightly completely invalidates the arguments proving him to be impossible, and thus making the strong atheism position untenable. While we can rightly say we know that a god possessing the aforementioned "omni" powers does not exist, we cannot say the same about a merely extremely powerful god who mostly leaves us alone. A strong atheist has no knowledge of whether or not such a god exists, and yet his position requires he know such a god does not exist. In requiring a claim to unjustified (and unjustifiable! ) knowledge, the strong atheist position clearly less grounded in reason and evidence than the weak atheist position. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(physics) 2. . http://quantumphysics.suite101.com... 3. . http://books.google.com... 4. . http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu...