Your best argument for any person to be an atheist
Waiting for the instigator's fifth argument.
The round will be automatically forfeited in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Just plain and simple. What is your best argument to be an atheist?
What could you offer as an argument ideally I suppose for yourself, myself, anybody else to be an atheist?
Is it the strongest?
Is it totally non-debunkable?
Questions about the topic, please leave a comment or send a message.
- Since this is a 5 round debate, I will take the round to interpret the resolution and lay some essential groundwork, as this debate is unorthodox and needs a standard by which we can evaluate the winner or loser respectively.
- The resolution proposes "your best argument for any person to be an atheist." I suggest the most reasonable way to evaluate this is for me to play the advocate role of the mentioned position and, as stated, simply present what I believe to be my best argument for the topic.
- Mall shall propose an argument that is supposedly better than my argument and we shall engage with one another in deliberation upon which argument is indeed, the best. I propose the debate shall be judged accordingly. Weighing my argument against whether or not Mall has demonstrated a better one.
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no descriptional specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework.
- Dropped. Extend.
- The resolution is not even a proposition, (a statement that can be proven true or falsified). Instead, the object of the debate becomes the presentation of my best argument for atheism. To evaluate this, we can judge the debate on your critique of my argument with a better one.
- My case is simple. The strongest or most compelling/convincing argument for atheism is a logical attack on the existence of a monotheistic God of the three largest religions predicated under such (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). It is, as you may know, called the problem of evil.
The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.
- I will simply quote Plato Stanford for its syllogistic format, and we can get into the deliberation upon it in the next round.
- p1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- p2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- p3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- p4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- p5. Evil exists.
- p6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
- c. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
- I believe this to be the most compelling argument for atheism because it appears to people's sense of reality as well as their personal moral convictions rather than making any broad ontological or metaphysical critique. It is a logical structure that only seeks to present it as unreasonable to believe in the existence of God. It is a reduction argument that many of the most prominent theists continue to struggle with to this day, thus, I label it accordingly.
- In round one, I propose a reasonable interpretation of this unconventional and peculiar topic resolution that has no descriptional specifications. Mall drops this revealing that he does not object to my framing, thus, I will continue this debate under the proposed framework. I encourage voters to observe this and vote accordingly.
- Fairly establishing continuity with my overview. First, we can note that pro is yet to provide a better argument as consistent with my unchallenged framework.
- Pro's burden is to simply provide his best argument, and if every round of the debate is waived subsequently, pro currently has won the debate. Con needs to somehow falsify my argument presented as my best one. Granted, I have provided an avenue for this: the presentation of a better one, which will de-facto become my new best argument if decided so by the voters to fulfill the most rudimentary interpretation of the resolution.
- Pro has dropped every premise of my "best argument," even admitting he would not respond to it. Thus, he has dropped the argument. Extend.
So your best argument, best....is not evidence but based on some form of reasoning.
- Logic and deductive reasoning are both evidence
Based on what someone else thinks at that.
- All of science is based on the work of others, I don't see a problem here. Not what someone else thinks, but what someone else has evidenced, better said. This is no different than citing the works of Isaac Newton or Stephen Hawking.
You do realize what was said is based on what man thinks about God or a deity.
- It is based on logical findings.
I could question, rebut each line of a statement made but it wouldn't make sense to argue about a person's opinion.
- Logic isn't an opinion.
Who's to say the deity has to or will conform to logic?
- Because definitionally God is God? I will just quote Bill Pratt here:
It is extremely important to note that humans could never know anything about God without the laws of logic. Without the laws of logic, God could exist and not exist, God could not be God, God could be good and non-good (evil), and so forth on and on. Logic is essential to our knowing God.
- Otherwise would be an admission that you can not even logically prove that God exists on the theistic side which essentially contradicts every theist. The point of the argument is to engage with theistic deductions and showcase them to be logically untenable.
- Pro does not challenge my framework, meaning he accepts it.
- Extend all arguments.
- Dropped. Extend.
All of science is based on the work of others, I don't see a problem here. Not what someone else thinks, but what someone else has evidenced, better said. This is no different than citing the works of Isaac Newton or Stephen Hawking.Ok so apparently we have evidence that proves something. Something like what? Well the non-existence of God.
- How does this even connect to what was previously informed, I am sure we shall never know. The evidence has been presented in the problem of evil syllogism (see from previous round: logical evidence)
Until you present evidence, it's what someone thinks. This kind of rhetoric is feeding into the delusion of atheists. All your selling is the same delusion to believe something because someone, namely a scientist said it.
- The evidence has been presented, however, I don't mind if you fail to read it. In addition, scientists inform us of all of their findings. The same goes for philosophers, they inform us of their logical findings.
Logic isn't an opinion.Until you present evidence, it's opinion.
- Logic still...isn't an opinion. Also, you can go back and read round two for the evidence, as well as the subsequent round.
Who's to say, Mr. Pratt? Is that who's to say?Why is this based on what this person thinks?
- It is explained simply by the theologian mentioned. If God is God, he must conform to logic otherwise he could be both God and not God, and he could be himself and not himself, etc.
There is no evidence for the existence of God. There is no evidence for the existence of No God.
- Unsubstantiated claim