The Argument for/Pro presented in the debate "Atheism is reasonably impossible" is flawed

For the benefit of readers I am cutting and pasting in the argument my opponent made in the other thread that I claim is flawed. It begins:Now, I am sure we all know that our universe is orderly, and has many scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Motion, and the Universal Law of Gravitation. We know these laws exist objectively because of the objective effects they have on our world. Now here's the important part. We know these laws exist objectively, but they are not actual physical things.We can see their effects, but see can not actually touch, see, smell, taste or hear the laws themselves.What are the effects of this in relation to our debate?We now know that these objective non-physical laws must exist. However, with an atheistic viewpoint, it is reasonably impossible for these laws to exist. Atheism is the non-belief in God, which means no spiritual being can exist. If any did exist, even if they were not omnipotent, they would be in a higher form of being than the physical world, and would not be subject to our physical restrictions. This would therefore make any spiritual being able to be called a God, assuming they were the most powerful spiritual being. Ergo, Atheism requires materialism, the belief that nothing exists but the physical world.But mere physical matter cannot create laws or rules, as it requires intelligence. Example: We as humans have intelligence, so we can create laws. But a rock cannot create rules and laws, as it is mere physical matter. But there's more. We humans, despite being intelligent cannot create objective physical laws, as any law we make will be subjective. We only have control over ourselves, so we can only make ourselves obey that law. Through that same logic we must conclude that anything able to make an objective law must have control over everything, ie. Omnipotent. So as the last conclusion, anything that is capable of making objective laws such as the laws of science, must be: 1.Non-physical2.OmnipotentThe only thing that fits this criteria is God. Also, I would like to point out that if this argument is correct, Atheism is reasonably impossible (see above statement), so to win this debate my opponent must refute my argument.This ends my opponents argument an begins mine.Atheists do not believe in gods by definition.This does not commit them to materialism, though most are materialists. It does, however, commit them to naturalism. An example of a famous atheist who was not a materialist is Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell was a neutral monist. He believed that there was something more fundamental than mental and physical stuff. Here is an article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for anyone interested in the position and it also confirms that Bertrand Russell held the position.http://plato.stanford.edu...Neutral Monism is only one of many possible metaphysical positions an atheist can take with regard to the relationship between the mental and the physical besides Materialism. Another example of a position an atheist can take is what David Chalmers terms Type-F Monism. I fall into this category. In this ontology, what we think of as physical properties are really just abstracted mental properties. In other words, mass actually has a feel associated with it. We abstract it out when we quantify to predict behavior. In Type-F Monism, .0001 grams could actually stand for what it is like to see the color blue. Someone interested in learning more about this position and many other alternatives might enjoy this article from David Chalmers: http://consc.net...It is even possible that an Atheist subscribe to interactive naturalistic dualism. What make a theist’s notion of a “spiritual being” unpalatable to most if not all atheists is that theist’s invariably attribute complex cognitive functions to something other than the brain and so personality and memory can persist without it.Hence a theist can believe in an afterlife where spirits can remember their previous life and reflect on it. This seems to be at odds with observations of patients with brain damage who can become very different in personality and are no longer able to recall memories. A naturalistic dualist can believe that there is mental(experiential stuff) and physical stuff and that they are distinct and fundamental, but that cognitive functions require a brain that evolved and and this shapes the experience of the mental stuff so that it becomes the experience of what it is to be a human being. In the case of interactive naturalistic dualism as proposed by physicist Henry Stapp that mental stuff is what brings about the collapse of the wave function of the brain. It experiences memories and thoughts only because it is the wave function associated with the brain. Wave functions in general would not experience cognitive functions. These are all naturalistic positions positions an atheist can take besides materialism. Atheists do not have to be materialist and some are not.Your argument also relies on a misunderstanding of how many scientists and philosophers use the word law in the expression "natural law". A materialist can hold the position that the behavior of an electron is self determined and described by natural laws written by men. You may not believe that an electron can determine its own behavior, but an atheist can and there is no contradiction in holding this position or disagreement with empirical observations. You may have an intuition that disagrees with the intuition of an atheist, but does not invalidate his position. An atheist can even say that there are no laws of nature in the sense that you use the term. They describe the likelihood of behaviors and do not even predict them.Here is an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that talks about this position of the descriptive nature of natural laws:http://plato.stanford.edu...;There is no contradiction in these posittions or disagreement with empiricle observation. An atheist does not have to believe that natural laws dictate behavior, They can hold that these laws simply describe behavior or probabilities.