Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#6574
Atheism is not logical
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Creation itself is evidence for the creator. Just because you cannot see God, does not mean he does not exist. If i was to tell you that man has no intellect how would you prove that to me if you can’t see or hear intellect?
Con
#2
Your argument: "Creation itself is evidence for the creator. Just because you cannot see God, does not mean he does not exist. If i was to tell you that man has no intellect how would you prove that to me if you can't see or hear intellect?"
Counter:
First, you assume it is a "creation"
Calling existence "creation" already assumes a creator. It is circular reasoning.
You put the conclusion into the premise.
Just because it exists, does not mean it is a creation.
Saying "god did it" means nothing.
Second, unicorns, fairies, dragons are also not "disproven" by science. Just because it is not disproven does not make it proven. The burden of proof is also on the one that makes the claim.
Science can prove everything. It works in binary, "true" or "false".. God is evidenceless, God is also not testable(thus no empirical evidence, and God is not even a theory).
So God exists outside of science, in a separate made up realm called "supernatural", where unicorns and fairies exist. So God holds as much weight as a purple unicorn.
Third, your analogy is weak. Intellect is not visible in the same way God is claimed to be.
It is observable, and has measurable effects.
We can detect it through problem solving, reasoning, language, neurological activity, and also behavior.
So, where is gods measurable, testable, predictive effects that cannot be explained without him?
Round 2
Pro
#3
I am religious, so I will refer to it as creation.
What exists on Earth is proof that there is a maker. If you acknowledge that man-made things have a creator, how can you argue that much greater things have no creator? You are the one who needs to prove otherwise, as you are contradicting innate predisposition as well as the logical reasoning that everything has a maker and does not just come from nowhere.
Regarding the concepts of 'disproven' or 'proven,' the proof for the existence of God lies in what exists on Earth. The dung of a camel proves that a camel was once there. The complexity of our planet is by design. Night and day alternate without malfunction; such perfect design cannot have occurred naturally.
You said, “God is evidenceless.” If you rely solely on being able to see or hear God, then of course, you will conclude that God is “evidenceless" The issue lies in the metrics you are using. Science has been unable to explain numerous things (e.g., what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’), and what is found in the religious scripture I read and believe in (the Qur’an) has only been discovered by science later.
The argument regarding intellect is valid. Both intellect and God are not visible to humans on Earth. Atheists do not believe in God because they cannot see Him, but they presumably believe in the existence of intellect despite its invisibility. If we consider observability, the observable proof of God’s existence that atheists reject includes what we see on Earth, which logically must have been created by a maker. When discussing behavior, consider the natural instinct of humans—when in distress—to turn to a higher being.
How can you prove that this natural instinct is not a proof for the existence of a higher being?
Con
#4
ANALYZING OPPONENT'S CLAIMS
Your argument: "Everything that exists must have a maker."Analogy: "man-made things have creators, Earth and life must have a creator."
Refutation:
- Man-made objects are designed by intelligent beings, yes, but the natural world operates via natural laws, not necessarily intelligence.
- Complexity doesn’t automatically imply a designer; evolution and physics explain complexity without intentional creation.
Your argument: "Complexity and regularity prove design."Analogy: "Night/day cycles, life, natural processes."
Refutation:
- Nature has patterns because of natural processes (e.g., planetary motion from gravity, day/night from rotation). No intelligent planner required.
- Evolution explains apparent “design” in biology. The eye’s complexity arose through selection, not planning.
Your argument: "Atheists reject God because it’s invisible; yet we accept intellect even though it’s invisible."
Refutation:
- That argument is ignorant. It is a classical "god-of-the-gaps" Claiming “science cannot explain X, so God” is assuming what you want to prove.
- Science may not fully explain morality, intellect, or consciousness yet, but that doesn’t mean God exists.
- Intellect is inferred from observable actions and outcomes (thinking, problem-solving, speech).
- God is not reliably observable in the same way, claims about God’s action are subjective and not replicable.
Your argument: "Natural instincts (e.g., turning to a higher power in distress) are evidence for God."
Refutation:
- Humans turning to higher powers in distress is cultural, psychological, or evolutionary, coping mechanisms, not evidence of divinity.
Your argument: "Science sometimes confirms scripture, implying divine foresight."
Refutation:
- Retroactive interpretation, reading modern science into ancient texts is confirmation bias. It does not demonstrate divine knowledge.
You practice Quran? Yet you try to be scientific about it? That doesn't go hand in hand,
Islam supports pseudoscience:
- Semen comes from between the backbone and the ribs (86:6-7)
- Shooting stars being missiles thrown at devils (67:5-7, 37:6-10, 15:17-18)
- Stars being in the lowest heaven, as in being near to us (37:6, 67:5, 41:12)
- The sun setting in a muddy spring (18:86)
- The earth being created before the heavens (2:29, 41:10-12)
And more...
Conclusion: Complexity or natural regularity doesn’t automatically require a designer. Analogies with human-made objects fail because natural laws can produce order. Turning to God in distress is psychological, not evidence. Science’s current gaps do not equal proof of divine causation.
In short, your argument relies on assumptions and God-of-the-gaps reasoning, not independent, testable evidence.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Not going to lie it looks like you heavily used AI for this but I am still going to respond.
You have not refuted the fact that if man made things have a creator much bigger things have to have a creator. You acknowledge nature but you haven’t disproven that a God is behind that. If something is complex one naturally assumes there was a person/animal behind it. A spiderweb for instance. I do not believe in evolution. You are effectively saying ‘this happens naturally, no one is behind it’. I am saying, ‘this happened because of a creator and just because you cannot see God does not mean you can simply brush off the complexity of the earth as naturally occurring with no planner needed’.
No the intellect argument is not just saying ‘so God’. I provided evidences to you: the complexity of this earth and human predisposition. However, Atheists reject God simply because they cannot see him but that cannot be a legitimate basis for rejection when intellect is not visible and yet presumably all Atheists believe it exists.
The incompleteness of Science does not prove God exists (never said that is does…). However, the Qur’an contains factual information that has been scientifically proven to be true later on which shows how the Qur’an is a book of truth and had to have come from God. God is not visible to us on earth (neither is intellect). For intellect its sufficient for you to not see it but when it comes to God that’s not sufficient even when I presented evidence. That’s an issue with your thinking.
‘Cultural, psychological, or evolutionary’-
- cultural - humans cross culturally believe in God and naturally turn to him in times of distress
- Psychological- are you implying it’s a mental issue?
- Evolutionary- don’t believe in evolution.
- Coping mechianism- subjective, you believe its a coping mechanism
You are assigning all these possible causes because it is something that cannot be explained away with science.
It’s not confirmation bias if a book revealed over 1,400 years ago to an unlettered Arab contained information that science later learned was true…
‘independent, testable evidence.’- this is your criteria. Testability is not a requirement for something to exist. Humans can doubt but can we test doubt?
Con
#6
Pro couldn't properly argue back, so they relied on accusing me of using AI.
I did not used AI to formulate the ideas I presented.
Some of the parts I did borrow from certain unnamed sources.
For the Islam segment, I've read Quran(not thoroughly), it is not AI.
See, the problem with your argument is you aren't supporting theism(I suppose that's what you intent here), you're only redefining knowledge so God can exist in it.
Your claim: "You acknowledge nature but you haven’t disproven that a God is behind that"
Refutation:
Have you proved it?
This is not how burden of proofs work. Theists are the ones making the claim, i.e, "God exists", the theists must first provide evidence for the claim, if not, then people can simply reject it(because the claim is unprovable). Athiests only reject the God theists preach about, because of the lack of empirical evidence.
You say complexity happens because of a creator, can you prove it? No.
I say it happens because of nature, physical laws and chemistry, can I prove it? Yes. How? Through empirical evidence. Which theists do not have.
You know what else I cannot see? A unicorn with purple fur wearing a yellow dress.
But I also assert that I saw it create flowers.
Then I tell you to believe that unicorns with purple fur in yellow dresses are the ones creating flowers.
Would you believe me? Or would you ask for evidence?
Say you ask for evidence(empirical),
I reply "well yes, the evidence is complexity of the flowers, only a unicorn with magical powers can create such beautiful, and fragrant flowers".
Would you believe me? Or no?
Let's suppose you say yes,
Then you aren't being scientific. That is not how you reach a conclusion.
To verify a claim, scientifically, you must:
1. Ask for evidence.
2. Verify if the evidence is empirical.
Definition
Empirical evidence: Information acquired through direct observation, experimentation used to validate a claim.
Here, the existence of a god is a claim.
In order to make it testable(hypothesis), you must provide me with the sufficient amount of observable, repeatable evidence.
Your claim: "Atheists reject God simply because they cannot see him but that cannot be a legitimate basis for rejection when intellect is not visible and yet presumably all Atheists believe it exists."
Refutation: No, athiests reject God because god, as I said, is just a claim, which is empirically untrue(false), scientifically unprovable. They can reject it, that is rational. If you choose to have faith, it's morally okay, but scientifically? It's irrational, because do you have any empirical evidence? No.
Your claim: "Qur’an contains factual information that has been scientifically proven to be true later on which shows how the Qur’an is a book of truth and had to have come from God."
Reply: I could list a million flaws with Quran right now. Quran has nothing but fallacies. Sure, some hadiths MIGHT say truth, but the next one says something contridicting. Easiest religion to debunk.
And if Quran is a "Truth book", then why does,
Islam supports pseudoscience?:
- Semen comes from between the backbone and the ribs (86:6-7)
- Shooting stars being missiles thrown at devils (67:5-7, 37:6-10, 15:17-18)
- Stars being in the lowest heaven, as in being near to us (37:6, 67:5, 41:12)
- The sun setting in a muddy spring (18:86)
- The earth being created before the heavens (2:29, 41:10-12)
I mentioned all of it in my previous argument, you failed to reply.
Even major dawah teams have started to say,
"Do not mix science with quran. Science can not be proved with Quran". Lol. You might argue that is just an "opinions" but,
My suggestion to pro: Pro should read his/her "truth book" which apparently is "holy" by promoting pseudoscience, one more time. Pro should spend more time reading it. Reading trusted versions. Not sugar coated ones.
Quran is NOT good, the only type of truth in it is pseudoscientific fake truth. It is a book of hate, violence, pseudoscience and sexism.
If you are interested, I will start a debate, we can argue about the legitimacy of Quran.
Your claim: "Cultural, psychological, or evolutionary"
Refutation: In your culture segment you said, "Humans turning to him in distress", then in the last part you said it's subjective to think it's a coping mechanism. You are contridicting yourself.
It is, objectively, a coping mechanism. And to prove it is more, is on you. Not me.
Your claim: "independent, testable evidence.’- this is your criteria. Testability is not a requirement for something to exist. Humans can doubt but can we test doubt?"
Reply: It is not 'my' criteria. By your logic, nothing must exist, because someone's criteria doesn't allow it to exist.
It is the SCIENTIFIC criteria. If you deny that, you agree with the major dawah teams on the Quran segment. Which means you rather support pseudoscience than actual science.
Yes, doubt is a state of mind, it can be reported, be observed by neuroscience, and is repeatable. However, your God is not.
You: "I don't believe in evolution"
Reply: that tells me everything I needed to know. I will start another debate on evolution. I request you to join, if you are interested.
For the 'intellect' part: how many times do I have to tell you? Have you ever taken a mathematical ability test? Have you taken a cognition test? If you have, You can identify intellect through it. Intellect is complex, not very well understood, but scientists are figuring things out. And consider reading the burden of proof segment above one more time after this.
conclusion
Pro has provided 0 evidence. Pro is using logical fallacies.
Pro is giving unsupported evidence, which can be easily debunked. Pro is also lying about the Quran, even after I clearly mentioned the fallacies of Quran in the 2nd round.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Hello..
I am the con in this debate, or the athiest.
If you want to debate, you can "start your own debate", or are you interested in a debate with me?
I didn't read the whole discussion but I don't think that the pro did a so good job in this debate, the atheist also didn't make lot of sense imo. It's also my first time here, where can I continue this debate as a pro believer ?
“ I provided evidences to you: the complexity of this earth and human predisposition.”
You literally did not provide a single bit of evidence this *entire* debate dude. You don’t know what the word evidence means.
I’ll show you some more example of evidence. Claim: The crust on earth is in continuous motion. Evidence: the mid Atlantic ridge is a ridge where new crust is being made and pushed away. The new crust is then pushed away from the ridge. Which pushes older crust away into subduction zones where it is pushed back to the lower crust it mantle, melted, recycled. Glacial scarring from a singular ice sheet that left scarring in South America, Australia, Africa, and Antarctica. Did an ice sheet stretch across the oceans and curve wildly to do that? No, it happened because those continents used to be a single land mass called Gondwana.
That is evidence dude. Not ‘you don’t believe in god because he’s invisible, but air is invisible too, therefor god exists.’ That is nonsense man.
Holy mother of god this debate was so difficult to read. Thinking mind implemented more logical fallacies per sentence than just about anyone I’ve seen aside from maybe Karl Marx.
Let’s start simple, you don’t get to say things like ‘the proof for Y is X’ then provide literally 0 evidence for X being proof for anything. A question is not evidence, especially when the question isn’t actually a question, but a virtue signal. It’s a rhetorical, nonsensical question, ‘how can you think man-made things have a creator but greater things don’t.’ What exactly are these ‘greater’ things and what makes them ‘greater’ than human made objects? Do you think a salamander with no eyes is ‘greater’ than the device you are currently using (the most powerful information accessing device the world has ever seen) to argue with people on the internet? If you do, that’s fine, but in what way? And why does that increased ‘greatness’ prove the existence of a god? To go a step further, let’s assume you absolutely 100% prove there is a god, you have to then find proof that this god is what you think it is. You have to prove it is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all forgiving, a blue elephant, or whatever description of god your religion provides.
We can back up though, because I’m trying to address flaws in ways of thinking, not flaws with specific arguments.
You make the same argument over and over again ‘the complexity proves…’ how does the complexity prove it? You don’t to get to ask a question as evidence. You don’t get to criticize something else as evidence. That’s similar to arguments from incredulity or personal incredulity. ‘I don’t accept this answer, therefor god.’ ‘I can’t answer this question, therefor god.’ ‘You can’t explain this or answer this question, therefor god.’ That isn’t evidence, but it does have a name. ‘Negative evidence’
You need positive evidence. Positive evidence is direct proof. It doesn’t rely on criticizing something, dismissing questions, nothing, it is just direct proof. I’ll give you a few perfect examples. Claim: Parkinson’s disease is caused by the destruction of the dopamine system. Positive evidence (proof): in patients with Parkinson’s disease, brain scans show the death and destruction of dopaminergic neurons. (This next part is important) there is no other outcome of dopaminergic neuron death besides Parkinson’s disease. There is no other possible cause of Parkinson’s disease. Where there is destruction of the dopamine system, there is Parkinson’s and vice versa.
Example 2: Claim: MDMA causes its effects by causing a sudden wave of serotonin, called a serotonin dump. Positive Evidence: brain scans show a massive flood of serotonin after MDMA is ingested. In depth brain studies done on rats and mice show a flood of serotonin after MDMA ingestion. Any animal that has a serotonin system experiences the same pharmacodynamic and potentially even psycho-social effects. Why? Because MDMA causes a serotonin dump. That is what proof and evidence looks like man.
Another logical fallacy, false argument , false equivalence, and strawman. You claim atheists don’t believe in god because they can’t see him. That is simply not true, not a single atheist has ever made that a core of their belief system. Just because you cannot formulate an argument more complex than that, doesn’t mean everyone else struggles as well. You then say that intellect is invisible and therefor atheists should deny that if they want to remain philosophically consistent.
First and foremost, you’re now arguing with no one, no one is an atheist because they can’t see god. (No one is obviously an exaggeration but the point should be clear) second, since you made this argument up in your head (no one said it besides you) you push the argument over like a strawman and pretend that you doing that is evidence of your claim. Feel free to read my earlier explanation of what proof and evidence looks like, it has nothing to do with proving something else wrong, it has everything to do with just proving the claim.
Third, you say intellect is invisible. It isn’t invisible, at all lol, we can see intellect when someone does math, writes a book, draws a picture, makes a watch, invents something, etc etc etc. intellect is not invisible, and even if it were, isn’t evidence for a god existing it’s evidence that people believe intellect exists lmao nothing more.
I suggest enrolling in some college level philosophy courses. You need to learn how to think.