Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Strong Atheism

Pro tries to squeeze out of the omni God and dismisses Wikipedia as a valid source. Fair enough, because I have backing by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Theists believe that reality's ultimate principle is God—an omnipotent, omniscient, goodness that is the creative ground of everything other than itself. Monotheism is the view that there is only one such God." [1] Furthermore, it states: "God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections." [2] It seems obvious that if other versions of God don't possess these great qualities, then they're simply lacking and not suited to be called "God." My opponent has also conceded that a God possessing all four omni's can't exist. She says that I am supposed to refute more Gods than that; but I already clarified this earlier in the debate. I was not going to refute other versions of "God" because they simply can't be called "God." For example, the Pantheists who say the Universe is God, that's not a God I have to refute. As the philosopher Coleridge said, "Everything God, and no God, are identical positions." [3] ----> L O G I C A L L Y - G O D - C A N ' T - E X I S T <---- Pro mentions a 3D sphere that exists in flatland, while also transcending it. However, God isn't said to exist in another higher dimension, but rather, God exists outside of time and space and is outside of the Universe. My opponent tries to assert that God can exist both outside time and space as well as within space. However, this cannot be possible given that the Creator is separate from the creation. If the God existed outside space and in space, this would bring about an impossible situation where the Creator is also inside the creation that he created. The only way transcendence makes sense is if God exists outside of, and separate from his creation. She also concedes this argument by saying: "*IF* god must be both omnipresent and transcendent, and *IF* transcendence must mean completely separate from the universe, then sure, that God cannot exist." ----> S C I E N T I F I C A L L Y - G O D - C A N ' T - E X I S T <---- My opponents whole contention here is that the measuring device physically interfered with the election going through the slit. However, her own source did not state this and in fact, supports my position. It said: "physicists put up a measuring device – an observer – NEXT TO THE PLATE to see which [slit] the electron really went through. Amazingly, the electrons returned to behaving like particles again, creating two vertical lines on the back wall. THE SIMPLE ACT OF OBSERVING THE QUANTUM WORLD ACTUALLY CHANGED THE OUTCOME!" So no, the measuring device did not physically interfere. Her own source confirmed that merely the act of observation collapsed the wave property of the electrons. This fact confirms that observation collapses quantum superpositions as asserted by my argument. The rest of her argument was based on the false notion that physical interference collapses superposition, as opposed to observation, so those points really hold no weight. ----> P H I L O S O P H I C A L - R E A S O N S <---- Pro's contention is dealing with infinity as a number, but God is not a number. He is not numerically infinite, he is spatially infinite in that he is boundless, limitless, and expands in all directions infinitely. Given this, there cannot be a spatially infinite God and a spatially infinite Universe. These notions are directly in conflict and simply not compatible to exist simultaneously with each other. ----> C O N C L U S I O N <---- My opponent essentially concedes the argument by stating right off the bat that the God with four omnis is NOT possible and CANNOT exist. That is the traditional God that I clarified in the earlier rounds and she essentially agrees with the Strong Atheist position. Her only gripe is that I don't account for lesser beings, but lesser beings aren't the "greatest conceivable being" now are they. Thank you for reading. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu...