Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

Dropped Arguments I would like to note that PRO has made absolutely no responses to my argument in R3. If the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion follows necessarily and I have offered reasons to find the premises plausibly true. Lack of Evidence PRO has repeated the same argument since the beginning of this debate: “Theism has no evidence to support it, therefore theism is unreasonable”. I would like to note the key unstated, and more importantly unsupported, premise that “Beliefs without evidence to support them are unreasonable”. I have already explained that we do not have, and arguably cannot have, any evidence of the reliability of our senses or the existence of the external world, as the very act of gathering evidence presupposes that our senses are reliable and an external world exists. However, we do not have evidence for either of these. A1. It is unreasonable to believe any proposition p that is not supported by evidence. (Assertion by PRO) P1. Proposition W [An external world exists] is not supported by evidence. C1. From A1 and P1, believing W is unreasonable. P2. Proposition C [Human cognitive faculties (our senses and reason) are reliable] is not supported by evidence C2. From A1 and P2, believing C is unreasonable. Following PRO’s own reasoning, it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of an external world or the reliability of our senses, yet PRO continues to assert that evidence for the existence of God must be available for belief in God to be reasonable. Evidence requires that W and C both be true, but per PRO’s own reasoning, it is unreasonable to believe either of these is true. Even if these are in fact true, sans any reason to believe that they are true, we are not justified in believing them. Believing either of these is unreasonable. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to believe the conclusions reach from these beliefs. I will illustrate via example. Suppose I believe that (1) Jim has 10 coins in his pocket. Suppose further that I believe (2) Jim owns a Chevy Camaro. I believe (1) because I saw Jim reach into each of his pockets (pants, shirt, and jacket) and pull out 3 quarters, 6 dimes and 1 nickel. I believe (2) because every day for the last two years, Jim has driven to and from work in the same Chevy Camaro. From the conjunction of (1) and (2), I form the belief that (3) the man with 10 coins in his pocket owns a Chevy Camaro. If (1) and (2) are true, (3) must be true as well; this is the nature of deductive logic and identity. However, suppose (1) is not true; Jim actually has 12 coins in his pockets; (3) would then be false as well because the man who has 10 coins in his pocket is not identical to Jim, and Jim owns the Camaro. In the same way that the falsity of (1) transfers to (3), the unreasonableness of a belief transfers to the conclusion reached from that belief combined with other beliefs. It is the combination of two (or more) true or plausibly true propositions that generates a true or plausible conclusion. If one of those propositions is false or plausibly false, the conclusion does not follow from them. If is unreasonable to believe W and C, then it is also unreasonable to believe anything suggested by evidence. So, either (A) PRO must accept the conclusions and implications from the argument above or else (B) concede that evidence is not the only thing which makes belief reasonable. Either of these undermines his argument, and they are the only options available to him. Extraordinary Claims and Extraordinary Evidence I was wondering when this would pop up. I have never heard or seen this claim directed at anything other than God’s existence. I do not think this is a coincidence. It seems to me that there are several other extraordinary claims, like the two I’ve repeatedly mentioned during this debate. However, rarely do we even ask for mediocre evidence for these. They are metaphysical claims that we cannot hope to prove conclusively. In this way, they are similar to the claim that God exists. So, it seems to be Special Pleading to accept them without evidence, but reject the claim that God exists due to lack of evidence. Closing I have offered positive reasons to believe the resolution is false. PRO has not responded to my Argument from Experience. I have offered another argument here. I have also offered reasons to suppose PRO's argument thus far is insufficient to establish the resolution. I will not offer any new arguments next round, out of kindness to my opponent. I hope PRO will give better reasons to believe the resolution than “Theists can’t provide evidence”. I’ve given reasons to suppose that having evidence isn’t the only thing that can make belief reasonable.