Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

Poor Analogies PRO begins by drawing an analogy between this debate and a debate on the reasonability of belief in the Yeti. This analogy is unsuccessful, for two main reasons. 1. The Yeti doesn’t have the level of explanatory power that God would have, provided God exists. a. God (as defined for this debate) is posited as the cause of the universe. The fact that the universe exists demands explanation, considering it could not have existed, and theists posit God as the explanation. The Yeti cannot be posited as an explanation of the universe, as the general understanding of “the Yeti” is that of a being existing within the universe. 2. The Yeti has not been personally experienced in a way similar to God. a. While different religions have different rites and rituals, religious practitioners often argue that, since they have personally experienced God (as defined), that God must exist. This doesn't make the belief true, but rather inferred from the senses. The Yeti being “experienced” would be a mere sighting of it, which, in and of itself, will not generate emotional or physical responses. Burden of Proof Revisted Here, again, PRO attempts to shift the BoP. I don’t need to provide reasons against the resolution. PRO needs to provide reasons for it. This debate is not “Belief in God is reasonable”. It is “Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism”. PRO must establish this via argument and/or evidence. Preemptive Objections The idea of a “default position” would not serve to affirm the reasonableness of atheism over theism, as there are several positions which we consider reasonable which are not default positions, yet are not supported by reason or evidence either. 1. Our sense are reliable- that is, when it seems that a tree is in front of me, generally, that means there actually is a tree in front of me, not that I am being deceived or some such. 2. Logic works the way we think it does – while formal logic has several systems, each one assumes that it is accurately describing something. Classical Propositional logic, for instance, says that reasoning from: p and p implies q to q is valid. No evidence can support this (evidence must be interpreted in some way, and the interpretation, at some level, requires logic), and using logic to prove (or disprove) logic is circular. 3. A world exists such that we can perceive it (Or "An external world exists") – this is essentially the idea that when I see a car, the car exists independently of my perception of it. In other words, I am perceiving something whi ch exists beyond my mind. 4. Other minds exist – I (whatever that means) am distinct from AndyHood. We have different beliefs, desires, likes and dislikes. I cannot provide any evidence for AndyHood’s distinctness from me other than it does not appear to me that we are the same. I do not think he is some mindless robot or some such, but rather an entity ontologically similar to, yet distinct from me. Each of these is, generally, held as a reasonable belief. Even if we can’t provide evidence for any of these (and it should be easy to see that we can’t), generally, we hold it to be reasonable to accept these propositions. There is a group (philosophical skeptics) that hold such beliefs to be unreasonable, for one reason or another, but it would be trivially true that belief in God is unreasonable if all beliefs are unreasonable. However, if all beliefs are unreasonable, there cannot be grounds (reasons) to consider beliefs unreasonable, as the use of evidence and logic as a test for reasonableness presupposes the proper operation of logic and reliability of the senses. Sufficiency of Personal Experience We believe in an external world primarily on the basis that we seem to perceive it. The every-day John Doe is not going to ask himself “Am I being deceived by an evil deceiver? ” when he goes outside. It seems obvious to us that an external world exists, but it is still possible we’re wrong. While everyone believes in an external world, the experience of an external world is wholly subjective. All of us might experience an external world, however, by the very nature of the case, the existence of an external world cannot be proven. It isn’t that it has yet to be proven. It is not possible to prove the existence of an external world. Similarly, there are those who experience what they consider to be the touch of the divine. In the same way belief in [the existence of an external world] is reached from personal experience, so too can belief in [the existence of a personal creator of the universe] be reach from personal experience. Closing I await PRO’s positive arguments for the claim that “Atheism is more reasonable than theism”. As it stands now, no positive arguments for this conclusion have been offered. PRO has yet to affirm the resolution. Again, I do not need to provide positive arguments for God’s existence, I only need to rebut PRO’s arguments.