It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist


Waiting for instigator's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
*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 Ramshutu! This debate is purposed for deep thought and conversation. I hope that we can inch our way closer to the truth and hopefully at the end emerge as friends. 

Maybe this is not said enough, but 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.

In 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 and so is not infinite.

“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 un-embodied 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/

Many thanks to my opponent for this debate: I will launch right in.

0.) Definitions 

I will start off with a definition of a theistic God, that broadly covers all concepts of God as we know them.

God is an entity that was not created; they have a mind and thoughts, that has a direct interest in the affairs of humans, and created the universe as an intentional act for the purposes of creating life, and is the most powerful, smartest and good being that exists.

1.) What caused God.

While often dismissed, why God exists rather than nothing at all is just as much of a major metaphysical problem as it is for the universe.

To believe God exists one must assume - without any additional evidence - that the nature of existence allows for a mind, with thoughts and desires, and inherent abilities, that is able to control and manipulate space, and is able to create or invalidate logic itself: to simply exist with no cause from nothing, out of nothing.

If these metaphysical assumptions are all possible and valid; then an explanation with fewer of those same assumptions that could produce the same universe must also be valid. In addition, if a solution with fewer of the same assumptions is possible due to Occam’s razor: it is more likely.[1]

In this case postulating some unknown physical law as a cause, and which does not have a mind, desires, or any inherent power other than its potential mechanical effects requires far fewer metaphysical assumptions than does a deity - and thus is more likely.

2.) Deducing the cause of the universe is impossible.

The nature of the universe as we know it, is absurd. Effects such as quantum tunnelling, superposition, spooky action at a distance, a constant speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, etc, are all non intuitive concepts[3] that no one would have been able to inherently deduce on their own without direct experimental evidence.

Premises of many deductive arguments for God - especially the KCA - require philosophical assumptions that we have no basis to presume true.

Take causation: do things that begin to exist all require a cause as P1 of Kalam normally states?

We have no way to tell whether this is true for all things: all things includes, us, the universe, all metaphysical realities in which the universe exists, and all potential or possible unknown aspects of existence. We could assume that what is true for our small corner applies to all of reality: but that would be invoking the fallacy of composition.[2]

After all, in the history of scientific discovery, assumed self evident truths were truths right up until they were shown to be false.[4]

Given the potential strangeness and complexity of the universe already revealed - attempts to make assumptive premises like those in the KCA wholly invalid.

3.) No God is more reasonable than God.

Due to our complete inability to plausibly deduce external information about what is true outside the universe - we cannot make any assumptions and expect them to be valid.

It is not possible to say whether a hyper-intelligent mind encompassing all reality being able to exist without being caused is more or less likely than an infinite regress of causes.

It’s also not possible to say whether or not reality supports a deity existing without cause is more likely than an object that isn’t a deity coming into existence without a cause either.

Without being able to make or assess any possible claims, or justify the probability of any metaphysical statement about what is or is not possible in the underlying reality in which we live; all that is left is reducing the number of metaphysical assumptions to as minimal a set as we can.

In this case; Atheism has fewer metaphysical assumptions:

  • An eternal cause of the universe is possible (same as theism)
  • An eternal cause of the universe does not itself require creation. 
  • It has no mind
  • It has no power
  • It has no desire
  • It has no interest in human affairs

This clearly has far fewer metaphysical assumptions than theism; is not as complex a proposed solution and thus is more likely due to the application of Occam’s razor[1]

4.) Ramshutus Razor

The definition of God requires that the universe is created intentionally. Presuming that God did not “half-ass” creation, and that God is by definition the smartest being in the universe - the universe must necessarily represent the most perfect possible universe for the goals God had when he created it.

From this, we can postulate goals that God may have had, by finding aspects of the universe that cannot meaningfully be improved upon by human when weighed against those goals : if Ramshutu was able to improve upon the universe for a given set of goals - then those cannot be the goals that God had.

The issue is that there does not appear to be any way in which the universe is perfect. And thus there exists no clear set of goals that cannot be improved upon.

One could posit a universe that is less hostile to life; or one where life was created directly by God - if God was simply interested in making life.

One could posit the goal is for life to be challenged: a universe that is perfectly challenging - where all problems can inherently be solved by all life at the time would be an improvement to this one - where sometimes the piano is just going to fall on your head whether you troubleshoot as it falls or not.

One could posit the world as a challenging maze , where individuals go through a moral test to show their value: but in that case would it not be better to make it look like the universe wasn’t created at all so it’s a fair test? Rather than revealing to some but not others?

The list continues; and could fill up the remainder of the debate with such examples, leading to the following:

There is no known coherent set of goals for which the universe is perfect. Thus there is likely no God behind them.

I have presented three plausible, reasonable sets of goals that a God could havehad. And therefore three possible Gods that don’t exist. 

So this means one of two things: 

A.) The lack of obvious purpose and perfection indicates that God probably does not exist - as if a God existed, they would have plausible goals which we would not be able to improve upon.

B.) One must add unknown, speculative additional “hidden goals” that would make the universe perfect; but in a way we couldn’t detect, nor tell.

Not only does the idea of (B) seem patently absurd, the issue is that each of those speculative hidden goals is a metaphysical assumption.

This leads to one final conclusion:

There is a large multiplicity of Gods that could have existed, for which we don’t have to speculate some hidden goal - yet none of them exist

Instead of any one of those realities, we appear to live in a reality where if God does exists - the goals he choose make the universe looks as if he didn’t.

As a result: it is clearly more reasonable to believe God does not exist.

5.) Rebuttals

I’ve covered most of the detail above; however I will cross reference specifics.

5.1.) How did a complex universe come to exist out of nothing?

I don’t know.

However as shown in (1)- if one has to chose between which of two complex things are more likely to come into existence from nothing: it’s more reasonable to chose the less complex thing.

5.2.) Kalam premises

Kalam fails on the basis that you cannot be certain of the premises - as covered in (2) and (3).

Pros case requires the metaphysical assumptions that:

  • Infinite regress is impossible
  • The immaterial must create the material
  • That the immaterial need not have a cause.
  • That physical laws and process must be caused because they are material.

Pro cannot possibly know any of these are true or not - and as shown in (2) - we cannot rely on intuition or extrapolation to assume it.

Without being able to demonstrate those things are true - or even assess probability: Kalam inherently fails.


I have shown that reality existing without God requires fewer assumptions, and is therefore more likely.

I have shown how and why deductive arguments like Kalam that make inherent assumptions about reality are fundamentally useless.

In addition, I have presented a case for why the universe itself appears to preclude a theistic definition of God.

These three together clearly fulfill the burden of proof.






Round 2
To start off this rebuttal I find it necessary to ask Ramshutu a few questions: 

Does the universe exist? How do you know?

Does science assume that the universe exists? Can we use science then?

How is a universe without a cause possible?

Know that there are no scientists that can truly ascribe to not knowing that the universe exists and can at the same time practice and make scientific observation on the universe. All thought, you name it, is based on the universe. You must have certain assumptions or Axioms on the foundation of thought in order to have it. Mainly: 1. The mind exists, 2 there are true things that we observe, 3 the universe exists and we observe rational things from it such as laws and order. 

So the question from above is: Do we assume the obvious? Yes. 
What if you didn't? Then we couldn't accept anything as true (even in this debate). 
To ignore the obvious would kill all rational thought on anything, even thought itself. 

You will see soon why these questions matter in the rebuttals. I will first examine Ramshutu's speech for arguments against God's existence and then respond to his response of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 

To Contention 1 (There are no good reasons for Atheism)
R = Response

"Definitions I will start off with a definition of a theistic God, that broadly covers all concepts of God as we know them.
God is an entity that was not created; they have a mind and thoughts, that has a direct interest in the affairs of humans, and created the universe as an intentional act for the purposes of creating life, and is the most powerful, smartest and good being that exists." -Ramshutu

          1. The definition of God that I will be defending is the one that is derived from the conclusion of the KCA. The intentions and interests of God in the universe has no bearing on whether or not God exists, but instead is another debate for another time. 
“What caused God.” -Ramshutu


          1. This question is the same as asking “what caused the uncaused.” The problem here is that Ramshutu uses the definition of God as contingent (meaning must have a cause), when God is simply a necessary being (meaning must be uncaused) by definition. Another example of a necessary thing would be a triangle having three sides. Why does the triangle not have four? Because a triangle by definition is a shape with only three sides.
          2. God by definition is uncaused and so asking if God is caused is like asking if a triangle has four sides.
          3. The question remains: Does God (this necessary being) exist?  
“Deducing the cause of the universe is impossible.” -Ramshutu

          1. This is a hefty claim indeed. No one would claim such a thing about anything else we observe. Instead we always ask where things came from: Where did he/she come from? Where did life originate from? Where did the earth come from? Etc...
But when it comes to asking the question about the origin of the universe you stop there?
Such a bold assertion must be supported by reasoning of which I have yet to see. 
“The nature of the universe as we know it, is absurd.” -Ramshutu

          1. Absurd means illogical/irrational. If nature is illogical, then you (a part of nature) and your statement would itself be illogical.  
          2. Then in order for anything to be rational at all, there needs to be a rational basis in nature. As we argue rationally, we prove once again that our universe is founded on these rational principles, else we cannot possibly rationalize anything.
          3. Once more you make a bold assertion, but it contradicts everything that we know and experience.  
“No God is more reasonable than God.” -Ramshutu

          1. This claim puzzles me. Do you think the creator of the universe is like any other made up god? We are not debating any such material deity as you say, but are looking for the explanation of the very existence of you, me, and everything.
          2. This argument seems to mimic all of the rest in trying to distract from the evidence pointing to a creator.
          3. Remember to follow the evidence where it leads.
“In this case; Atheism has fewer metaphysical assumptions” -Ramshutu

          1. Another bold claim, but what again does Atheism presuppose? It assumes that either the universe has always existed for no reason or the universe popped into being from nothing!
          2. This is a worldview that ignores any real explanation for the universe.
If I told you that you, me, a country or anything at all always existed, you would have thought me crazy and rightfully so. Physical things are contingent or requiring a reason for getting here. The same goes for something from nothing. If a criminal told the bank (after being caught after the act) that his 20 million popped into existence from nothing, they would have thought nothing of it (and probably throw him in jail).
Why? Because things in our universe require an explanation. The universe is no different.
“Atheism has fewer metaphysical assumptions:” (lists claims) -Ramshutu

          1. Theism assumes none of these. (take a look at the many arguments for a creator)
          2. Please do not ignore the question of the origin of the universe, but instead think about why it is there. 
“From this, we can postulate goals that God may have had, by finding aspects of the universe that cannot meaningfully be improved upon by human when weighed against those goals” -Ramshutu

          1. You assume that we can know God's, an all knowing being’s, plans. Think about it for a second. It would be even worse than saying a baby could understand the plans of a grown up genius! We are still discovering the numerous complexities and laws/functions of the universe and you think we can know God’s plans? Far from it would be the reasonable stance.  
“There is no known coherent set of goals for which the universe is perfect.” -Ramshutu

          1. How could you know? It seems to prove the opposite of your conclusion. That if there is a being with unlimited knowledge (the created knowledge), then we, vastly limited in our knowledge, will be far from understanding all that this creator knows. 
          2. The problem with these types of arguments is that they distract from the debate by not answering the question: “where did the universe come from?” That answer is key to knowing if God exists. Like knowing if a painter is behind a painting, you must ask, “Who painted the painting?” and you will soon get to the answer. The question of God is no different.

Contention 2 (There are good reasons for Theism)

I found it sad that you did not directly refute the Kalam. You state: 

“Kalam fails on the basis that you cannot be certain of the premises” -Ramshutu

          1. Why? Please be more specific and show why the premises are false. If you cannot do so then the argument still stands. 
“I have shown that reality existing without God requires fewer assumptions, and is therefore more likely. I have shown how and why deductive arguments like Kalam that make inherent assumptions about reality are fundamentally useless.
In addition, I have presented a case for why the universe itself appears to preclude a theistic definition of God. These three together clearly fulfill the burden of proof.” -Ramshutu

          1. From what we have seen I can't grant you this. You have yet to put forward evidence to the possibility of existence without God. The best we have seen is an attempt to discredit arguments for God by discrediting logic and reasoning that underpin all thinking.   
          2. As the hackneyed, but true, statement goes, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Impact: You have yet to fulfill your burden as Con. Please instead show a deductive argument like the KCA that shows Atheism must be true.


If we are open minded we must ask ourselves the biggest question nagging at the center of all things: Where do these things come from? Similar to asking where is the locomotive to a group of train cars. God is simply the engine that started it all off. 

To Truth!

0.) Definition

Pro wishes to defend his preferred notion of God - one that he didn’t define prior to the debate, does not match any dictionary definition and wouldn’t be accepted as the God of any religion if it matches that definition and no more. Given pros failure to define God up front, the broad definition which is more commonly understood as God should be used.

1.) What Caused God.

Pro seems to have argued against the title, nor the content: I extend this point:

If pro can assume things can exist without a cause - he has no basis upon which to object to things existing without a cause.

2.) We cannot deduce the cause of the universe.

“This is a hefty claim indeed.....Such a bold assertion must be supported by reasoning of which I have yet to see.”

The reasoning was provided in the body of point 2, which pro hasn’t  responded to. 

Let’s clarify using one of pros assumptions: That infinite regress is impossible.
Pro states this is impossible; but has no information or knowledge about the true nature of reality upon which to draw that conclusion. Pro must rely on either intuition (which we know repeatedly fails), or extrapolation (which fails due to the fallacy of composition).

Humans are limited by what we can imagine and conceive. As reality is demonstrably not constrained by our imagination or ability to understand it, these assumptions are speculative at best.

1000 years ago humans deduced matter was made up of earth, air, fire and water. 150 years ago humans deduced there must be lumineforous aether, that time was immutable, and there was no ultimate speed limit.

Pros assumptions here are no better or worse than those : and no more inherently valid.

2.1.) The universe is absurd

I argued  that the universe operates contrary to both our intuition and what we observe in the macro world. Pro claims instead that I am stating the universe is illogical. This is a straw Man. I extend the original point.

3.) No God is more reasonable than God.

“[Atheism] assumes that either the universe has always existed for no reason or the universe popped into being from nothing!”

Pro appears to mock Atheism for the very same assumptions he made and staunchly defended in point 1.

Both Pro and I assume it is possible for something  to exist outside of time, without having been created or caused. We just disagree on what that cause is.

Pro is arguing that thing is a disembodied brain, with thoughts, feelings, a will, and who consciously manufactured the notions of space, time, cares about the affairs of humanity, etc. I am arguing that the thing is simply some form of physics that is  just sufficient enough to allow for the existence of the universe as we see it.

Out of the two propositions, the latter would be sufficient to produce what we see, and makes far fewer metaphysical assumptions about what is possible. Hence: the No God is the simpler and thus most likely solution.

3.1.) The false Dichotomy.

Pro also presents a false dichotomy. That either a super being exists - or that the universe is all there is. In reality there are multiple other possibilities (Multiverse, simulation, etc)

None of these cases are covered within pros trinary choice: rendering his claim
A false dichotomy.

3.2.) Pro “doesn’t make assumptions”

Pro claims he doesn’t make assumptions. This is false. In my prior round I explained that pro assumes:
  • Infinite regress is impossible
  • The immaterial can exists
  • Only the immaterial can produce the material
  • The immaterial can exist without having been caused.
  • That physical laws and processes must be caused.
  • An unembodied mind can be immaterial.

Pro requires all of these to be true - and none have factual or evidential support (This was covered in detail in my prior round - point 2)

4.) Ramshutus Razor

“You assume that we can know God's, an all knowing being’s, plans. “

Firstly, pro confuses plan with goal. While I would not expect any non technological person to understand Microsoft’s strategic technological plan - I would expect most to understand their goals. 

Secondly: This is not an assumption; pro is confusing the Razor for a deductive argument.

If God doesn’t exist, the universe likely has no purpose, and thus there is no reason why it would appear perfect in any way we could measure.

If God does exist, the universe is necessarily perfect.

The evidence directly matches what is expected in the “God doesn’t exist” case, and directly conflicts with the “God exists” case.

Pros problem is that there is no necessity  that God must create a plan we can’t understand. There is no necessity  that God has goals that would lead to a universe that doesn’t appear perfect. Pro isn’t able to show it is even possible that a perfect universe could  exist in a way that would not appear perfect in any obvious way.

If God exists - pro is forced to assume that for God was forced or required to make a perfect universe appear completely imperfect.

As shown in Round 1 - this makes God less likely.

As pro dropped the majority of this point; I extend.

4.1) Flat earth analogy of pros counter.

Let’s use an analogy we can relate to:

If the earth was flat, NASA would be expected to produce images of a flat earth. The fact that they don’t produce such images reduces the probability that flat earth it’s true.

The ignorant or illogical could counter that “this assumes that NASA isn’t lying to us and trying to cover up a flat earth - and a space organization that makes billions has every reason to lie”.

That could be true - NASA possibly has that ability but there is no  necessity

In this example; as with pros argument, a speculative assumption is used to dismiss or excuse the predictive failure of an explanation.

It’s always possible to speculate and assume reasons why evidence contradicts an explanation - even if that explanation is wrong.

5.) Rebuttals

Following on from the previous rounds:

5.1.) The case for Atheism / no deductive arguments.

My opening round provided a clear set of inductive and abductive arguments as to why No God is more likely  and more reasonable  than God. In almost every single point, my arguments are comparative: comparing the idea of God to that of not God, and assessing which is more likely. 

Pro demands a deductive argument - but as shown in point 2 - deduction is unreliable due to inability to confirm assumptions.

Pro should address these arguments; rather than demand a different type of argument for no reason: I extend

5.2.) Kalam

I produced detailed arguments against Kalam in point 2 and 5 in round 1: and I have given more detail above. These points have been dropped by pro,

Infinite regress could be possible; it may be possible that things began to exist without a cause - pro makes these assumptions based on faulty intuition. (See point 2)

Pro goes on to make a series of unsupported assertions about the material and immaterial: Pro does not define the material, or immaterial, cannot show the claims about the material and immaterial are true - and it appears that pro is simply pulling these assertions out of thin air.

As a result of this; even if Kalam is true - it extends only as far as showing the cause is timeless, uncaused and sufficient. Which covers both God, and a non theistic cause - which inherently allows for both pro and cons explanations.

You can either stop at where Kalam ends; or you can layer on a number of unsupported metaphysical assumptions and hand waving claims about the material and immaterial - as pro does - to end up with God.

Occam’s Razor clearly shows that the former is more likely - a mindless sufficient cause only- which is inherently the position of Atheism.

5.3.) Where did the universe come?

This question is irrelevant to the resolution: if I show no God is more likely or reasonable than God, I have met my burden of proof.

Secondly; the claim that the laws of reality allow for a universe to exist without being caused is just as detailed and comprehensive an explanation as “Goddidit”

Humans are inherently more comfortable with the concept of “someone making things” than we are with abstract physics. This layer of comfort is the carpet under which pro is sweeping all the problems, and lack of detail; only to raise those same problems and lack of details for Atheism 


1.) I have shown Atheistic non-God causes have fewer assumptions.

2/3.) I have shown the evidence clearly indicates the deductive methodology for arguing the cause of the universe are inherently meaningless.

4.) I have shown the universe doesn’t match what would be expected if the universe was created by a God.

5.) I have shown pros Kalam argument supports an atheistic solution - and to show God exists, pro must lump on a series of baseless assumptions.

As a result of the above; I have clearly shown Atheism is a more logical, reasonable and likely explanation for the universe.

Round 3
Due to Pros Forfeit - I extend all my arguments to the next round.
Round 4
I extend my arguments to the next round again. 
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet
--> @logicae
The burden of proof point is bit some tactic to score wins. It is a logical law that negative points cannot be proven. The question of which takes more faith may be a burden neutral question (unsure), but in your description you asked con to prove that god does not exist. That is logically impossible.
For example, (and i dont mean to compare god to these nonexistent things, just the act of proving them.) Please prove that leprechauns dont exist. Or unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters. Its impossible. You will have to literally and definitively make a list of all things that exist in existence to prove something does not exist
Thats preposterous. And thats why burden of proof is ALWAYS on the positive claim. On the person claiming existence. Noone can prove the impossible.
--> @Athias
Why thank you! I sure hope it does.
To Truth!
--> @Ramshutu, @logicae
I'm interested in seeing how this debate pans out. Good luck to the both of you.
--> @logicae
Great. I'll draw up a debate tomorrow.
--> @semperfortis
I take it that you would like to be on the Con side of things?
If so, you may pick any of those resolutions. I would be happy to join one if you made it.
To Truth!
--> @logicae
I wouldn't mind debating the exact resolution, but since Ram accepted the debate, perhaps something along the lines of "is theism a sound position" or "is theism a likely position" or perhaps a specific argument, like "is the KCA a sound argument". I don't mind really.
--> @semperfortis
I am.
What do you have in mind?
To Truth! -logicae
--> @logicae
I'd be interested in this debate or a resolution similar if you're interested.
--> @TheAtheist
my position on that title is that you must assume exponentially more in order to justify an Atheist world view. Take scientific truths and laws of the universe for example. The Atheist must assume everything just popped into being from nothing, giving no explanation for any of it. That to me takes more faith than to say that the universe has a source.
Hope that helps,
To Truth!
--> @logicae
Your title says that it takes more faith to be an atheist, but your description says something completely different. Maybe you would change the title to something more related, such as "Does the Theistic God Exist?"
Welcome all!
To Truth! -logicae
No votes yet