there is no god

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. == Epistemological Arguments == A knowledge claim is a logical assertion of truth. A belief is cognitive content held as true. One can believe something to be true, but just because they believe it does not make it true. For example, I might believe that my dog can fly. I decide to throw my dog off the roof and he indeed does not fly. My belief, therefore, was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that I KNEW my dog could fly, because obviously he could not. I cannot know something that is not true. However, if my dog could actually fly, then I might be justified in saying I knew my dog could fly. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true. While belief is a subjective personal basis for individual behavior, truth is an objective state independent of the individual, i.e., a fact. Whether someone's belief is true or not is not a prerequisite for its belief. Someone can still believe something untrue. However, it is impossible for someone to know something they do not believe. In other words, "I know I have brown hair, but I don't believe it" is self-contradictory. In order to know something you must believe it [1]. Now, the terms atheism and theism reflect beliefs about the existence of a god; however, Pro's assertion in the resolution reveals not a belief but a certainty: a knowledge claim. However, the philosopher Bertrand Russel explained with his Celestial Teapot analogy that such a knowledge claim about the existence of a god - or a lack thereof - was nearly impossible: "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes" [2]. In other words, if my claim is that something exists though we don't have the technology to observe it, there is no way to actually disprove it even if it is not rational for us to believe. Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, because it is a matter of individual belief with no absolute verifiable proof, it cannot be considered knowledge. You cannot make the knowledge claim that there is no god without proof, just as you cannot make the knowledge claim that there is a god without proof. Indeed one can disprove the Abrahamic god or various other descriptions of god(s) via logic proofs and/or other evidence. However, because god is not clearly defined (and there are many interpretations of god), then the concept of god itself cannot be disproved, or has not been disproved by my opponent. In order for his knowledge claim to be valid, he must present evidence that disproves all connotations of the word god. This includes beliefs such as pantheism (that god is itself the natural universe - 3) or panentheism (that the universe is a part of god, but god is more than the world and is not synonymous with the world - 4). In short, there are many characteristics attributed to various concepts of god(s) that make god nearly impossible to disprove, just as Russell's teapot. Therefore, the knowledge claim that there is no god as implied by the resolution is inaccurate. Atheism - the simple rejection of belief in the existence of deities [4] is a more appropriate position than what my opponent has illustrated. On a final note, I think we can see that my opponent has the burden of proof; he's the instigator of this debate and makes a positive claim [6] that god does not exist. I posit that his claim is not a knowledge claim but merely a belief, meaning his claim is not justified as there is just as much (or little) proof for his claim as the claim that god does indeed exist. Remember, simply disproving one concept of god(s) does not eliminate all aspects of god, nor is it certain that one can even disprove god considering one popular notion is that human reason and understanding cannot grapple with the complexity of god's existence. Back to Pro. [1] http://en.wikitemology... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370