Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Strong Atheism

----> C L A R I F I C A T I O N S <---- Contrary to my opponents implications, I never once asserted 100% certainty. This also does not contradict my prior statements. I can claim that I know God doesn't exist, while simultaneously accepting the fact that 100% certainty isn't realistic. Nothing I said in the forums contradicts the form of Strong Atheism presented in the first round. When I say that it is impossible for God to exist, I am appealing to logic. However, there are people who assert that logic and scientific laws aren't universal, or don't apply before the Big Bang so I can't say with 100% certainty that that's not the case. This small nuance is why I can't posit 100% certainty. So disregarding that absurd notion, I can still say that I KNOW God does not exist and that his existence is impossible, by accepting reason and logic as the universal standard. Another clarification that needs to be made is that we are talking about the traditional God as believed by the majority of the worlds population. There is no need to refute the people who say the sun is God or the Universe is God because obviously these things exist. Such labeling is equivocation and does not require me to refute those positions. People can choose to deify many things and call it God, but my position only applies to God as defined by theologians. All that being said, I will uphold my opponents request to defend the statements I made in the forums. So my position is thus. Epistemically, given that reason and logic are applicable universally, I know that God does not exist. ----> C A S E - F O R - S T R O N G - A T H E I S M <---- This debate is about which position is philosophically superior. For a position to be philosophically superior, it must be in compliance with logic and reason, as well as consistent with the evidence. If it is lacking in reason and logic, it is not philosophically superior. Weak Atheism takes the position that it's possible that God exists, but there is no evidence for a God, and thus lacks the belief in God. Strong Atheism says that actually, it's not possible that God exists, and there's logical reasons and scientific evidence against his very existence. My opponent believes that it's possible for God to exist, so I will demonstrate instead that God can't exist. I will, as such, list logical, scientific, and philosophical reasons why God can't exist. ----> L O G I C A L L Y - G O D - C A N ' T - E X I S T <---- *The Transcendence V. Omnipresence Argument* P1: If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time). P2: If God exists, then he is omnipresent. P3: To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space. P4: To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space. P5: Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4). C: Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) Given this logical argument, I can say that I know logically that God does not 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 <---- *Argument from Quantum Physics* P1: The God-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing – being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena). P2: Observation collapses quantum superpositions. P3: An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2) P4: We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed. C: Therefore, God cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4) Given this argument, I know that scientifically, God cannot exist. ----> P H I L O S O P H I C A L - R E A S O N S <---- One of my personal intuitive reasons for rejecting God is summed up nicely by Stephen Hawking: "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the Universe. If the Universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a Creator?" - Stephen Hawking [1] A finite Universe is inconceivable. If the Universe is infinite and boundless, it could not have been created by a God. In order for the Universe to have been created, it had to have a beginning and must be finite. If God is infinite, and he created an infinite Universe, we have a contradiction. Two things cannot simultaneously be infinite. ----> F I N A L - N O T E <---- I am certain that my opponent believes that naturalism is true and that the Argument from Evil works. If this is the case, shouldn't my opponent already concede that God doesn't and can't exist, and thus concede the Strong Atheist position? If my opponent concedes the Argument from Evil, then she concedes that Strong Atheism is philosophically superior. If she accepts naturalism to be true, at the very least she accepts that there is no God. ----> C O N C L U S I O N <----- I have effectively demonstrated that Strong Atheism is philosophically superior to Weak Atheism and provided philosophical and scientific justifications for Strong Atheism. I await my opponent's response Sources: http://atheism.about.com... http://wiki.ironchariots.org... http://www.strongatheism.net... [1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...