Instigator / Pro

It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
Sources points
Spelling and grammar points
Conduct points

With 11 votes and 65 points ahead, the winner is ...

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 1,535 / 5,000

*Important Note* Ignore the title. It is simply thought provoking.


1. BOTH sides have a burden to prove their positions. (I have noticed this kind of burden swinging in far too many debates. It is a tactic to merely win a debate, not to find truth.)
2. Sources are NOT everything. (Something that is also misunderstood is the nature of facts. Facts are NOT automatic guarantees that what you say is true. Facts can be: 1. Wrong 2. Misinterpreted 3. Misapplied to your argument. Lastly you can have a fallacious argument, which is one consisting of logical fallacies, such as contradictions, that are unable to be defended by mere facts)
3. Basic etiquette. (No character/ad hominum attacks,... etc)

In this debate we are debating Theism vs Atheism. No Agnostics may debate here, only those who claim, and will back up the claim, that God does not exist.

Here are the burdens outlined clearly:
For side Pro (For Theism): To support (build evidence on) and defend the existence of the Theistic God.

For side Con (For Atheism): To support (build evidence on) and defend that the Theistic God does not exist.
Please DO NOT pick up this debate if you are simply trying to debate as many of these as possible. The end goal is truth, not biting someone's tooth.

To Truth! -logicae

Round 1
Welcome RationalMadman! Please be mindful of both sides of the debate and respond to the arguments made accordingly. Clash is crucial to debate and is where truth is able to be searched and hopefully identified.

This debate I will maintain two main contentions:

1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There is good reason for Theism

Contention 1. There are no good reasons for Atheism

Atheism relies on a set of realities that seems absurd when you look deep into them. I will let side Con lay out evidence in defense of his side and I will respond accordingly.

I wish to make a note about the popular atheistic position of naturalism:

-Assumes various laws and order unexplained.  
The main question to the Atheist is how these complex laws, even the material itself, came to be here?

Contention 2. There is good reason for Theism

There are many arguments for God. Many having whole books written on them. For this debate I will bring my favorite:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Where did the universe come from?)

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause
For Premise 1

We know that all physical things began with some sort of cause, as something cannot come from nothing. To claim the opposite would be worse than magic, as with magic, at least you have the magician! Similarly we don’t observe things popping out of nothing. Simply, out of nothing, nothing comes.


For Premise 2

For this premise the universe must have begun a finite time ago.

“Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought”
-Mathematician David Hilbert

The Infinite Paradox

In reality we know absurdities such as an actual infinite cannot exist.

For example: For today's debate to come from an infinite past requires an infinite series of yesterday's.
                    This would mean that today's debate would never be able to occur, as today would only be prolonged time and time again by another past event,                      on to infinity, and never occur.
                    But today did happen (and this debate), thus illustrating this impossibility.
I recommend you check out the Herbert's hotel paradox as my favorite example of this. (1) (see citation below)

Science Confirms

So what does this entail? This means the universe is not infinite, but instead had a start. This is also the best explanation in modern science, as NASA details: "Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be. The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. "(2) (see citation below)

Here is a summary of the Big Bang Theory

"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe." (3) (see citation below)

For Conclusion:

So something had to create the universe, but is it God?

From the Kalam, we find that this creator must be un-caused, as we have seen there cannot be an infinite chain of past causes and thus a beginning not caused to this chain of finite causes. Changeless and timeless because it created time. Lastly this cause must be immaterial, because this cause created material.

There are two other important things that also follow from the Kalam: 

(1) A Mind:

There are only two things that we know to be immaterial candidates for our cause:

 1. An unembodied mind or 2. Abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects cannot cause anything, so we are left with a mind.

(2) Personal Cause: 

A personal cause is like our wills, it is the ability of the mind to will something into being.

This makes perfect sense, for if the cause was a mechanically operating set, then the cause couldn’t exist without its effect. For example: If there was a mechanical permanent cause that made water freeze (a permanent freezer if you will), then the water could never unfreeze as the cause is forever making it freeze. The only way our cause of the universe could be timeless and for its effect (creating the universe) could begin a finite time ago, is for the cause to be a personal agent that is with the freedom of the will to choose to create the effect. An example of this, a man sitting for eternity can freely choose to stand up at any time. 

These conclusive traits highlight what Theists call God, the external transcendent personal cause.

I hope you well in this debate and equally hope for good clash.

To truth! -logicae


(1) (Herbert's Hotel)
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=j_q802eboxA

(2) (NASA and Big Bang Theory)
https://science. Nasa. Gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang

(3) (Big Bang Theory)
https://www. Big-bang-theory. Com/

Round 2
Well, sad that this conversation can't be continued. I started a whole new debate on the subject around the same time in case this happened. 

To Truth! 

I concede this debate and am 'on holiday' from formal debating for as long as I please.
Round 3
Enjoy your break.

Quite frankly I get tired from these prolonged debate formats too. 

To Truth!
Round 4
To Truth!

Round 5