Strong Atheism is a Sound Position

A priori stance of non-existence Pro says "Pro [I think he means Con] seems to advocate for a 50% probability yes/no a priori, but this is absurd," but I made no such argument. I said that in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of a thing, all we can say is "I don"t know." Saying "I don"t know" is not a statement about how probable something is, be it 50%, 10% or any %. Another way of saying it is this: if someone asked me, "is the existence of being X just as likely as its non-existence?" My answer isn"t "yes, 50/50," my answer is "I have no idea." So saying that one doesn"t know how likely it is for a being to exist cannot be the same as a down the middle 50/50 probability " it"s a statement of ignorance regarding the probability of its existence itself. So I saw no reason, and still don"t, to rebut his premises because he gave no evidence for them either way! Pro says that in a lottery, "before the ball is drawn, it is reasonable to conclude that the number on the ball is most likely not "47"." This illustration is flawed and doesn"t represent accurately what we are debating. First, since "any" number can be drawn, then 47 cannot be any more or less likely than any other number no matter how many they are. It would be less likely for someone to know in advance that 47 would be drawn if the drawing to totally random, but the improbability of their knowing which number will be drawn has nothing to do with the probability of the number itself being drawn. Furthermore, we already know the 47 ball exists, so we can say for sure that 47 has some unknown level of probability to be drawn, but we can"t assign any level of probability to it being drawn without evidence for or against its existence. So I don"t see any evidence behind the premise that all entities are more likely to exist than not, why would they? What"s the evidence? None was given to us, and the probability of a thing must be based on the available data. And why are all entities less likely to exist than to exist? What"s the date upon which the premise is based? In science, we start with an observation, then formulate premises/hypothesis based on the observation, then carry out tests and experiments to confirm or disprove what we thought. Pro begins his arguments with premises based on no evidence, such are ad hoc. Pro keeps referring to me as "Pro," I am "Con" in this debate. Further, absence of evidence would only be evidence of absence if in the particular case under scrutiny, we would expect the subject in question to have left the particular forms of evidence for which we look. So if a murder seen doesn"t have the man"s foot fingerprints, DNA, blood, etc, this isn"t proof of his absence, but its evidence that indicates his absence; however, if the being in question who supposedly committed the murder was an invisible angel, what kind of evidence would we expect it to leave? Footprints? DNA? No, it wouldn"t leave any evidence we could detect, and thus absence of evidence in this case would not be evidence of the angel"s absence. Absence of evidence of an invisible, intangible being such as God, would not be evidence of his absence. Theological Fatalism Pro argues that "If someone could have chosen differently, then it would violate God"s omniscience, since his foreknowledge would be "wrong" when the choice contrary to his divine foreknowledge is made." He fails to see the fact that God"s omniscience doesn"t imply the person "can"t" choose differently, it simply implies that they "won"t" choose differently. God"s foreknowledge simply places him in the future point at which the choice has been made. This in no way shows the person didn"t have choice, it was simply a guarantee of God already knowing the result. Pro is actually saying that because a person definitely will do something, means that he has no choice but to do it, which is false. I definitely will type the next letter in this sentence, does that mean I had to? God already knows that I will type that letter, does it mean I had to? No, I could choose not to type the next letter, but God would know it in advance. If God gives me piece of paper with my future choice on it, do I have the freedom to chose otherwise and thus prove God a liar? Yes, I do have that freedom. I can choose something other than what God says I will chose, but I will not. The fact that I will not chose different doesn"t show that I couldn"t have chosen differently. It only shows that God knows what choice I will make when it comes down to it. The future which Pro says is set in stone, only exists based on decisions made in the past. Were those decisions different, which they could have been, the future would have been different. So Pro is ignoring the fact, that the future itself could have been different, in which case, what God knows about the future would have been different. In this way, God couldn"t be wrong, but we still have free will. The fact that we will not go against the future God has foreseen doesn"t show that we couldn"t have. I could go against the future God is seeing me in now, but if I did, God would not have been seeing that future, he would be seeing the future that results from the choice I did make. Non-Cognitivism of "God" Pro seems to argue that we need to define what God is made of in order to show his existence. But nobody knows what the objects seen in the Belgian UFO Air Wave were made of, but surely they existed. http://www.google.com... They emitted light, and could move within space-time, but Pro would call these secondary attributes, just like in his illustration with a "boodoo," say, "a boodoo that emits light and moves in spacetime" still doesn"t define what a boodoo is. He might say these objects were limited in size, so what if I say God has a shape and a size, does that somehow explain what God is? How is that any less of an explanation as saying he is unlimited in size, being eternal? Comparing a Spirit to energy, Pro say limits God since energy itself is limited, but what about a limitless source of energy? Just because Pro can"t imagine it doesn"t mean it cannot exist. What proves that human beings, who themselves are very limited in thinking and imagination, must be able to imagine exactly what something is like in order for it to exist? A dog may never comprehend some concepts we humans have, so should the dog conclude it doesn"t" exist? Isn"t it a bit dogmatic to assert that the only things which exist are those we can comprehend? Would a primitive from 5000 years ago comprehend the idea of an artificial intelligence or quantum mechanics? Pro didn't rebut the example of love. What is love made of? What size is it? Does it have mass? We know for a fact that love exists. The dictionary has definitions for both love and God, and just because Pro may not be able to get his mind around what people mean when they say "God" doesn't mean other people don't get their minds around it, and thus his inability to comprehend it doesn't show his non-existence. Moral Argument If there is no God who created us, then evolution is the only game in town. In that case, morality is simply a biological aid to survival, no less than our hands, and feet and teeth. I see no evidence that a herd morality invented as part of the accident of evolution via accidental mutation and natural selection, would be true. So Pro is backed into the position of questioning if objective moral values exist at all. He says the holocaust was right for the Nazis but wrong for the Jews, its all relative, and I simply ask the readers of this debate if they agree that the holocaust was not absolutely wrong regardless of whether other humans agree with you or not. Atheism naturally leads to nihilism inevitably, for if morality is subjective, then there is no right or wrong that imposes itself on us. Its just the opinion of one ape versus another (though they be highly evolved). In this case, the American"s had no sound basis on which to judge the Nazi because they didn"t do anything wrong. They were simply following their own set of moral values just as other people follow theirs. So without some higher law above mere human opinion to appeal to, there is no right grounds to condemn anyone for anything no matter how horrific, for they aren"t doing anything wrong. Such actions like rape and child abuse would just be socially inconvenient, but that does nothing to show such actions are really wrong. However, the fact that we experience moral values shows they exist, and not even the Nazi's would want the holocaust to be carried out on them. All humans know that somethings are just, wrong. I see no reason to deny the reality of our experience of moral values anymore than our experience of love, or the physical world around us. If nature does not care about suffering, then why not be cruel if it is beneficial for the individual person or society? History provides numerous examples of cruelty and oppression by perpetrators who saw personal or societal benefit in their actions? Preying on the weak brings more resources to stronger groups, so why wouldn't that be the predominant morality today? Evolution can't explain why people do good even when they gain no advantage, sometimes at great cost to themselves. The fact that Pro denies being a moral nihilist but then goes on to question the foundation of morality, even speculating it as an accidental product of evolution, shows that atheists want to hold onto moral values as absolute in daily living, but deny their true value in their writings because they cannot adequately defend morality without God. I will defend the fine tuning and experience of God next round. I'm out of space.