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

You beg the question in your first premise when you say “in fact they cannot do anything at all”. After that, you are being redundant. On what grounds do you assert this? Site a source. This is what it all comes down to. Does an electron follow a law dictated to it or are the so called laws of nature descriptions of what the electron does. It is interesting that you have argued that intelligence is required for an electron to determine its behavior, but you seem to ignore or fail to notice, that it could be argued that it takes intelligence for it to interpret and understand a law. How would it follow the law if as you say “it can do nothing at all”. If that were true, even if it understood the law, it could not act on it. It would stay stationary. Or do you mean to imply that their are no laws and god intervenes at every instant for every particle? Either way you are gored on the horns of a dilemma. Reasons why it is reasonable to assert that inanimate objects cannot make decisions: No one has ever seen an inanimate object make a decision, they just sit there being, well. .. inanimate! But you may say, “Aha! But electrons seem to spin round the nucleus of the atom without any apparent help. ” But then you come to the problem that, if electrons can determine their own behaviour, it seems every single electron ever has determined to spin in exactly the same way as the others. If inanimate objects could determine their actions, why don't we see them hopping up and walking down to the mall for a sundae or whatever. I'm not saying that electrons have to understand the instructions. I they are inanimate objects, they don't need to understand, they can just be made to. Does a ball need to understand when you pick it up? “Or do you mean to imply that their are no laws and god intervenes at every instant for every particle? ” I don't quite see what's so wrong with this. It works, and it would give the impression of there being laws. It describes a behavior and a very simple one at that. Holding the position that you do leads to the contradiction I point out above. We can either believe an electron has its own simple behaviors or some magical super human intervenes at every instant for every particle. An atheist very reasonably prefers the former. The behaviour may be simple, but it is not random, and seeing as electrons cannot make decisions, as I explained before, it therefore requires something to set those behaviours. And as for the reasonability, I prefer the second option, so it comes down to a matter of opinion. Seriously, your response is that they follow a law of “They always get messed up a bit”. So my question to you is if no law determines exactly where they end up, what does? They get messed up when they go through the slits, and only when they go through the slits. It's a bit unconventional, but there's nothing wrong with it. I am not arguing for String Theory. You said Multiverses are untestable. An outline for a test was presented in the article. The multiverse is possible until empirical results prove it wrong. This debate is about whether or not Atheism is reasonably impossible or not. You make your claim based upon your intuition. You made your claim that multiverses were impossible based on your intuition. Flat Earthers hold their position for the same reason you do because of intuition. Your intuition is no more trustworthy than anyone Else's. The fact that someone else’s intuitions are at odds with your’s does not invalidate them. Only internal inconsistency or disagreement with empirical results would. Maybe it is testable, but until some solid evidence is presented, I do not think supporting it can be called reasonable. The multiverse is possible and reasonable to believe because it explains the empirical results of Quantum Mechanics. In fact, it is a recognized interpretation of QM. See: . http://en.wikipedia.org...... I only have a vague understanding of quantum mechanics, so this article made no sense to me. Why? This is how the word is commonly used. The competing hypothesis made a prediction contrary to the evidence so it wins. I should have put the first line in quote marks. I was essentially trying to infer the the background radiation was not good enough evidence, to prove the big bang because of all the other problems that plague it. I would like to close by pointing out that my opponent’s sole argument for claiming atheism is reasonably impossible amounts to it violates his intuition. He is claiming that atheism is reasonably impossible so the burden is on him to persuade. He has not cited a single source or defended his intuition. He has simply repeatedly asserted it. Along the way he has not demonstrated that atheism is internally inconsistent or disagrees with empirical results. I have cited sources and shown that his argument does contradict empirical results. He has had to back peddle on his argument more than once as you can see be reading the thread from beginning to end. He has failed to meet his burden of proof. Atheism is reasonably possible. I do not need to cite sources as I have come up with the entire argument myself. And I think I have given logical steps to defend my argument. I have shown Atheism to be inconsistent by showing that an omnipotent, non-physical being must exist in order for inanimate objects to act the way to do. In all honesty, I am not very pleased with this debate, as I thought it was filled with confusion and misunderstandings, probably most of which were my fault.