It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

Hello everyone! Today I would like to make the case for classical Theism, That is the case for God. This question has been debated throughout all of history and so it is quite an honor to continue this great conversation and build upon it in the present day. This is my second debate on this topic. (my first being against omar, The original omar :) To you who has accepted this challenge, Welcome! I will only propose one rule: Please be mindful of both sides of the debate (including using evidence and reason) for your side and respond to the arguments made accordingly. Clash is important to debate and is where truth is able to be searched and hopefully identified. This debate I will support two main contentions: 1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist) 2. There is good reason for Theism That being said I want to clarify what Atheism I am talking about. First, The definition of Atheism according to Merriam Webster dictionary is "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" (1) (see citation below) This entails two different stances: One is an unbelief, Which entails that the Atheist is unconvinced of Theism (which is usually referred to as agnosticism). The other being a rejection of Theism by stating Atheism (God does not exist) to be true. 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. There was a bit of confusion from my last debate on what both sides were really supposed to do, Here is it outlined clearly: For side Pro (For Theism): To support (build evidence on) and defend the existence of the Theistic God. For side Con (For Atheism): To support (build evidence on) and defend that the Theistic God does not exist. Now that the sides are clarified I will jump to my first contention, That is: Contention 1. There are no good reasons for Atheism Atheism relies on a set of realities that seems absurd when you look deep into them. I will let side Con get into this contention (that is, Put forth arguments for why Atheism is true) and I will respond accordingly. Contention 2. There is good reason for Theism There are many arguments for God, Many having whole books written on them. For this debate I will bring my favorite: The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Where did the universe come from? ) P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause P2: The universe began to exist C: Therefore, The universe has a cause For Premise 1. We know that all physical things began with some sort of cause, As something cannot come from nothing. To claim the opposite would be worse than magic, As with magic, At least you have the magician. Similarly we don"t observe things popping out of nothing. Simply, Out of nothing, Nothing comes. For Premise 2. Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought -Mathematician David Hilbert (2) (See Citation Below) In reality we know absurdities such as an actual infinite cannot exist, For example: For today's debate to come from an infinite past requires an infinite series of yesterday's. This would mean that today's debate would never be able to occur as today would only be prolonged time and time again by another past event on to infinity and never occur. But today did happen (and this debate), Thus illustrating this impossibility. I recommend you check out the Herbert's hotel paradox as my favorite example of this: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=j_q802eboxA So what does this entail? This means the universe is not infinite, But instead had a start. This is also the best explanation in modern science, As NASA details: "Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be. The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. " (3) (see citation below) For the Conclusion: So something had to create the universe, But is it God? From the Kalam, We find that this creator must be uncaused, As we have seen there cannot be an infinite chain of past causes and thus a beginning not caused to this chain of finite causes. Changeless and timeless, Because it created time and therefore came before it. Lastly this cause must be immaterial, Because this cause created material. There are two other important things that also follow from the Kalam: (1) A Mind: There are only two things that would fit in this conclusion as the creator: 1. An unembodied mind or 2. Abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects cannot cause anything, So we are now left with a mind. (2) Personal Cause: If the cause was a mechanically operating set, Then the cause couldn"t exist without its effect. For example: If there was a mechanical permanent cause (let's say a freezer that was on forever) that made water freeze, Then the water could never unfreeze as the cause is forever making it freeze. The only way our cause of the universe could be timeless and for its effect (creating the universe) to begin a finite time ago, Is for the cause to be a personal agent that is with the freedom of the will to choose to create the effect. An example of this, A man sitting for eternity can freely choose to stand up at any time. If the cause is permanently present, Then the effect must be as well and so we must have a personal creator. These conclusive traits highlight what Theists call God, The external, Transcendent, Personal cause. I hope you well in this debate and equally hope for good clash To Truth! -logicae Citation: (1) (Definition of Atheism) https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/atheism (2) (David Hilbert) https://www. Math. Dartmouth. Edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Philosophy/Philosophy. Html (3) (NASA and Big Bang Theory) https://science. Nasa. Gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang