That Strong Atheism is Unreasonable

First, I will assert the guidelines, and then we will get debating! ==Framework==In case I wasn't clear enough in the first round, the BoP is shared. This was agreed by con upon his acceptance. This may not be argued after the first arguments are presented, as it would be an unfair BoP flip (for either side. ) My opponent has already lost conduct by posting arguments in the first round (since first round was for acceptance only. )Continuing on, I would like to acknowledge that I did receive a little help from YYW and Mikal. I thank both of them greatly for helping me formulate my ideas. The basis of this debate will rely on reason, not evidence that one side is correct (theism v. atheism) or uncited assertions. The topic is strictly whether or not strong atheism is unreasonable, not whether it is correct or not. Note some of the sources may be screwed up. I apologize for that. Also note this is a philosophical debate, so sources will be somewhat limited. "Strong Atheism" was pulled directly from the seven point scale of Richard Dawkins Spectrum of Theistic Probability [1]:"I know there is no God, with the same conviction that Jung knows there is one. "Without further ado, onto the debate! ===========================================================================================C1: 100% ProofThe idea of a "strong atheist" is that no God exists, and given strong atheist is 100% sure about that. Given strong atheist believes that there is absolutely zero percent chance that God exists, and is absolutely positive about his/her assertion. These ideals are flawed and unreasonable. This can be shown by simple logic:P1) There is no strong evidence suggesting God does not exist. P2) One needs proof to come to a reasonable, certain conclusion. C) It is unreasonable to come to a certain conclusion about whether or not God exists. Since strong atheism relies on the idea that there is literally no possible way that God exists, we can find that strong atheism itself is flawed. One can not come to a reasonable, complete conclusion without viable evidence and proof, which does not exist in the case of God. The complete conclusion that is presented by strong atheism is unreasonable. Now that we have asserted the conclusion, or the main base, of strong atheism is incorrect, we can attack strong atheism itself. Since the whole idea of strong atheism seems to revolve around the saying that there is a 100%, we should attempt to attack that further. But, more so, does a 100% even exist? The following text was taken during a normal religious conversation (from an atheist) [5]:"There is no 100% anything. Only close to it. "If even some atheists are willing to admit that they do not know, or cannot know, for a fact that God does not exist, we can arrive at the conclusion that strong atheism itself is flawed. C2: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absenceThe common strong atheist claim that "there is no evidence of God, so He must not exist" is flawed. As the old saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. " It is highly illogical to claim that you are positive that something does not exist just because there is no evidence. For example:If there is no evidence for Y, it does not necessarily mean that Y does not exist [3]. In this case, the evidence of absence for Y is not enough to come to a completely, surefire conclusion that Y does not exist. In other words, the existence of Y has not been in any way disproven, so it is not of reason to state that, without any proof, that Y has a zero percent chance of existing. As of now, we have yet to find any strong evidence supporting or negating the existence of a deity. However, the best one can do under these circumstances is suggest that we have been searching for God and we have not found him, but we can not suggest that there is no God. As David Hume may put it, we cannot have knowledge that the sun will rise in the morning. We cannot rule out any possibilities without proof, no matter what score we assign to them. If there is absence of evidence for God, it does not mean that He does not exist. At the very most, the absence of evidence suggests that God may not exist, but it alone does not prove that God does not exist. Since this is a vital part of strong atheists' beliefs, we can find that strong atheism is at least somewhat unreasonable. This affirms the pro's resolution. C3: Physics and MetaphysicsThe whole base of strong atheism relies on the assertion that science can prove certain things. While it may be possible to prove certain observable things with science and mathematics, it may be impossible to prove the existence, or non-existence, of an unobservable idea, object, or thing. There's a simple argument for all of this:"All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. .. Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist [2]. "Now, let's venture onto a whole new idea- that God is metaphysical [6]. The argument here is that our idea of God is metaphysical, not physical. We have finite knowledge, so (as my opponent did say in the first round,) it would be highly difficult, if not impossible, to conceive His image as is. So, we have our own concept of God. We are trying to prove the metaphysical concept of God with physics and science, which is unsound. The fact that strong atheism relies on the fact that there is a 100% is flawed- even more so than already suggested. Physics and science are not on the same epistemological plane as metaphysics are, and thus, one can not prove the other. Since strong atheism relies upon scientific evidence to prove the nonexistence of God, we can see that the idea is unreasonable, as using physics to prove a metaphysical idea is absurd. ==Conclusion==In conclusion, I have shown that strong atheism is unreasonable through three contentions. My opponent must show that strong atheism is reasonable despite there being no proven evidence. If he can not do that, he loses the argument section. He must also show that physics can prove metaphysics, and that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The resolution is affirmed. Sources:[1] . http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com...[2] . http://www.str.org...[3] . http://c2.com...[4] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... (See 2: Organization and Association of Ideas)[5] . http://carm.org...[6] . https://www3.nd.edu...