Atheism is an Illogical Worldview

Is Abiogenesis Impossible?Pro did not provide any sources to back up his scientific claims in support of Abiogenesis being impossible. I therefore reject them on those grounds, as we have no way to know in the context of the debate whether Pro's facts are true or not. Either way, Pro mentions that the consensus about what the early atmosphere of Earth contained has changed since the experiment Stanley Miller was working on with Harold C. Urey was carried out. This is true, that the consensus has changed, but contrary to what Pro says, the results are still extremely similar:"Many scientists now believe that the early Earth’s atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. Modern experiments with this mixture of gases produce similar results suggesting that early conditions on Earth produced complex organic molecules that probably became the basis for the development of more complex organisms."[1] Pro's argument against Abiogenesis clearly fails because even if the early atmosphere was the way he described it, that wouldn't mean life still couldn't arise naturally. Since he has not met his burden of proof in this regard, he has not shown Atheism is illogical with regards to the origin of life. Science Explaining The UniversePro claims that science doesn't explain the universe. However, some plausible scientific models do just that. One way the beginning of the universe could have happened was through a spontaneous quantum tunnelling process. Space, time, and energy could have emerged from a timeless and spaceless background describable by the laws of nature[2]. This idea has been put forward by well respected physicist Alexander Vilenkin, who describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a sufficient cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It is plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress implied by the model, and no initial cause is needed: "As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin[3] By "cause", Vilenkin simply means a sufficient condition. The timeless and spaceless background would of course serve as an unstable necessary condition. If one simply views necessary conditions as a cause, then the universe would still be caused under this scenario. So, there are scientific models which explain the universe just fine with no logical problems. MeaningPro may be correct that there would be no ultimate meaning to our existence under evolution. However, evolution would explain the evolution of the brain; the thing which enables us to give "meaning" to anything. Thus, in one sense, Atheism does explain meaning. As far as meaning in an ultimate sense, Pro has not shown why this is required of a worldview. There may be no meaning in this sense; we could be a cosmic fluke! Pro hasn't shown how this is illogical.MoralsPro commits the special pleading fallacy. He says that if humans assign moral value it is subjective, but if God does it, it is objective. How does that make sense? Pro says you don't need morality to survive in evolution but that is not true. If you work together in groups you can get more accomplished for everyone than if you worked alone. Thus, morality could be looked at as essential. He asked some questions that I will respond to:"Who are you accountable to if there is no God?" - ProWe are accountable to each other. "Who cares if you live life as a Mother Theresa, or a Joseph Stalin?" - ProHuman beings do."Why does it even matter what you do if there is no accountability?" - ProWho said there was no accountability?He also asks what motivates us to good or bad, and that would be our brains and our environments. He claims that if there is no objective moral law giver then there is no objective moral law. Pro hasn't explained why human beings themselves cannot be the objective moral law givers. Pro hasn't even shown morality has to be objective in the first place. This means his argument is a non-starter.DestinyEven if there is no afterlife or hope for humanity, that wouldn't mean there is nothing to live for. As philosopher Shelly Kagan explains:"It all ending up the same, isn't the same thing as 'and so it doesn't matter what happens until we get there'" - Shelly KaganEven if everything all ends up the same in the end, it wouldn't follow that life doesn't matter. That is a non-sequitur.Islam And ChristianityThis section has nothing to do with the resolution. I feel no need to respond to it. ConclusionAtheism can account for the origins of life and our universe. Meaning is explained by evolution, as this gave rise to brains which give rise to meaning. Pro did not show that God is required for morality, and that an afterlife is needed for our lives to be worth living.Since Pro failed to show that Atheism is illogical; the resolution has not been established. Sources[1] http://lcogt.net...[2] http://mukto-mona.net...[3] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)