Strong Atheism is a Sound Position

A priori stance of non-existence We should not assume that anything "likely" exist without evidence, but we should not declare that it "likely" doesn"t exist without evidence against its existence. Without evidence against the existence of aliens, all we can say (in the absence of proof that they do exist) is that we don"t know. So "before we assess the evidence and positive arguments in favour of God"s existence," we can"t assume its "more likely" that God doesn"t exist. We could only admit that we don"t know. I never argued the premises that Pro supposes, such as assuming that God exists a priori, thus I don"t need to rebut his rebuttals to arguments I didn"t make. I believe we should only believe God ""likely" exists based on evidence, not assumption. In response to "P1. All entities are more likely to exist then not a priori (a1, a2, a3" etc)," I would simply say that no entity is more or less likely to exist without evidence. In the absence of evidence in either direction, all we can say is "I don"t know." Absence of evidence isn"t evidence of absence, therefore, even in the absence of proof for the existence of a thing, without positive evidence against it, we can"t assume atheism more likely. Theological Fatalism My opponent asserts "that only God is defined as having free will in this debate," and why is this? He assumes we don"t have free will without presenting any evidence to that effect? Further, I reject the idea that God has free will. Let me apologize for not making this clear before accepting this debate or in round 1. I believe that if God has any free will, it is extremely limited within the context of his unchangeable character. I don"t think God has the free will to "become and evil, egotistical, self-centered person," but we do. It is an assumption on Pro"s part, that if God exits he would have free will. If God, as defined as being infinitely good, does exist, it logically follows that he doesn"t have the freedom to choose to do things that are against his good character, such as tell lies. And if he always exited, he didn"t get to choose his character either. P1) If God exists, he knows the results of all choices that will occur. I agree. P2) If he knows the results of all choices that will occur, then the future exists. I agree. P3) If the future exists, then God could not have chosen differently. I agree, but this does not mean that "we" could not have chosen differently. The fact that God exists in that future time when we have already made the choice, does not mean we did not have a choice. It simply shows that he exists at the point at which the choice was made and beyond, therefore, if we had chosen A, God would exist in a different future from if we had chosen B. God"s character gives him a limited set of options on how to respond to our free actions, but unlike us who have free will, he can"t act out of character. P3) If God cannot have chosen differently, then free will does not exist. But God could only choose in accord with his nature, just as a human cannot flap his arms and fly, he can only operate within the confines of his nature. This doesn"t show he doesn"t have free will. And the fact that in the future, God already made his choices, doesn"t show he was restricted by the nature of time, only by his character. C) If God exists, then free will does not exist, for him, but not for us. The fact that we already made a choice now, doesn"t show we could not have chosen differently. Thus, the fact that a future exists in which we"ve already made choices, doesn"t show that in that future we could not have chosen differently. I think these answers also negate C2. Defence of P2: Let's say I have a choice to eat weetabix or toast for breakfast tomorrow, if free will is true then I can at any moment choose differently. The fact that God knows what I "will" choose doesn"t mean that I could not have chosen differently. Pro"s argument is that the future being set in stone is what determines what choices we will make in the present, but I argue that the choice we "will" make in the present determine what kind of future is set in stone. So if I choose weetabix, God would exist in a future where I"m eating weetabix, but if I had choose toast, God will exist in a future where I"m eating toast. Furthermore, a parent may know their child so well that they "know" how they will react to an event. Their foreknowledge of how the child will react doesn"t impinge on the child"s free will, so God"s knowing what we will do doesn"t take away our free will. And our free will doesn"t minimize God"s foreknowledge, for knowing what we will choose doesn"t stop us from choosing anymore than the parent knowing how the child will respond stops the child from choosing. Defence of P3: What if our future only exists on the basis of each choice that God already knows we are going to make? If the future exists on this basis, then its existence doesn"t take away our free will or impinge on God's omniscience. Non-Cognitivism of God "God is a Spirit." (John 4:24) This is what God is in terms of substance. A Spirit is an invisible entity, which is conscious, and the closest thing in this physical realm I can think of to compare a spirit being to is "energy." If you can imagine energy being alive, but being an unlimited source of energy, such would be an illustration of the substance of God. But I think its fallacious to assume that a thing cannot exist unless we know what its made of. "Time is the fourth dimension and a measure in which events can be ordered." http://www.google.com... Time is called "a dimension." No one can say what time is made of. Nobody has seen time or weighed it, but who will deny that time exists? Do you love your wife? Do you love your kids? What is love made of? What is it physically composed of? Is it just a set of chemicals in your body telling you when to have sex or instincts programmed into you by evolution to propagate your species? These are speculative theories, but certainly they haven"t been proven, and nobody can define in scientific terms the physical composition of love. Yet, this is no reason to deny that we experience love in our lives! So Pro"s demand that I tell him what God is made out of, as if we would even have access to that information if he does exist, is unreasonable. It"s not like God is going to subject himself to our scientific experiments to get a piece of him under the microscope. Positive Arguments For the Existence of God Moral values cannot exist without conscious minds capable of realizing or thinking about them. Before humans existed on the earth, there was obviously no right or wrong in the animal kingdom. When a male white shark forcibly copulates with a female shark, he wasn't guilty of raping her. When a lion bites and kills another lion he wasn't guilty of murder. When a bird eats or kills her young (some birds do at times) such was not a problem in the animal kingdom. Actions such as rape and murder had no moral dimension to them among animals. But when humans came on the scene, we apprehended a world of moral values where somethings, such a rape, child abuse, and stealing, were really, truly, evil, and other things such as love, peace, compassion, and generosity, were truly good. Were these values simply the product of highly evolved brains? It doesn't seem logical that moral duties could sudden appear just on the basis that our brains had become more complex. For example, what if every human being were to agree from this moment on, that African slavery, the holocaust, rape, and child abuse, were good and right, would that make them right? If your answer is no (and my answer is certainly no) then you agree with me that moral values and duties are not decided by majority vote, nor are they simply the product of our brains. The fact that we experience such moral values shows that there is some higher source, above and beyond human opinion that determines what is ultimately right and wrong. But since such values cannot exist without a conscious being to realize them, we must conclude that some other conscious entity exists besides us human beings which imposes these moral values and duties on us. After all, laws require a law-maker. But why assume this law-maker is God? Why not aliens from space? Well, we don't see any aliens when making moral decisions do we? Whoever it is that imposes these values on us, is invisible. He is also undetectable by our current technology. Sounds more like God to me than anything else. But what's the alternative? My opponent may argue that moral values don't exist, in which case he'd be saying that its not wrong to murder, steal, rape and molest children. Will he really go to these extremes to win a debate? Will he embrace nihilism? Will he deny the very emotions he experiences? Secondly, the universe is set up upon a framework of very precise laws that must be finely tuned in order for life to exist. If you change any of these constants just a little, you won't have any life at all. The chances of all the constants getting it just right in a single shot at the big bang are simply too small to face. Thus, in the absence of any naturalistic explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, it seems an intelligent Creator would be the most logical source. If Pro demands sources for this information I will provide them in the next round. Finally, I want to ask, what about all the millions of people who claim to have experienced miraculous encounters with God? Are they all lying? Is it a mental illness? Is it not more probable, that since mankind has been religious for most if not all his existence, that God does exist?