The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Atheism is Logically Flawed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 527 times Debate No: 85249
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




This debate will be to show whether or not Atheism is logically flawed. I will be trying to show that Atheism is indeed logically flawed while my opponent will try to prove the solid logic of Atheism.

The Basics:
The concept of Atheism is that there is no God. No intelligent being behind the making of everything. I say that is flawed. No matter what point of view you take, evolution or what not. Atheism cannot explain creation. What was the beginning? I say, everything was made by God. Atheist may be able to explain the process of creation however they cannot explain what was the first thing.

A bit Deeper:
One might say everything just always has been. However that is no different than saying God has always been. Atheist have performed experiments with their intelligence to prove there is no intelligence behind creating. However many do not see the irony behind this. The thought that nothing created us is illogical! Our DNA is a code, every electron and proton are 1s and 0s like a computer code, they all have a "URL address" even. Every single thing in existence is balanced and mathematical. However when scientist try to figure out the universe without God then nothing makes sense. Nothing is balanced. It is because God created everything. The world is to perfectly mathematical and scientific for it not to be created. If it was a random event where a really big rock appeared out of literally nothing and exploded you would expect some obvious flaws in the universe.

More Complex:
Atheist at this point may come crawling to the Law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of Energy. They might say "Nothing can be created nor destroyed so God can't have created us." Well firstly, I could say that God created us from his own self, that way it wouldn't brake this law of physics. However for the Debate's sake I won't, instead I will break this illogical law of physics using another law of physics. The Cosmic Edge Principle. It is more of a question rather a statement. Does the Universe have an edge? If not the you are implying that it is ever expanding and matter and energy are henceforth being created. This destroys the two previous Laws. If you say it does have an edge then you are simply saying that outside of it is Nothingness. This would be physically impossible because even Space is recognized as physical and something. Meaning you would either run into a wall which would require energy to push against you, or you become nothing. Either way this destroys the Law of Conservation. (Even if you say there is a Multi-verse outside, then I will ask what is outside of that, and so forth until we reach the same conclusion that the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is broken!)

Now that I have broken a law of physics, an Atheist may say since Matter can be created now why couldn't the rock be created? However that is exactly the point, this shows that God can indeed create without breaking any true science nor math.


There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':
1.) A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
I would describe my self with the first definition I have no belief in the existence of any gods.

As to what or who caused the universe, an intellectually honest person would have to say "I don't know".
...." I say, everything was made by God."... It is not logical to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for supposing it to be true. Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts.
However this debate is about how Atheism is logically flawed, not about creation. The way I came to form my view of Atheism was through logic.
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. It is the mental tool that sets the standard for proper thought. It is the foundation of knowledge. It is the means of understanding and clarity. Without logic, we could not distinguish between the true and the false. We could not throw out bad ideas because we could not judge them as bad. Without logic, our minds would be cluttered with so many absurdities and falsehoods that if there was some truth, it would be lost in the garbage of contradictions, fuzzy thoughts, and non-integrated mental images.
Many, if not most, atheists hold that although one cannot be certain that God does not exist, there are very good reasons to believe that God does not exist - reasons good enough to justify acceptance of the proposition that "God does not exist."
If we see nothing in the universe that cannot in principle be explained by natural processes, the principle of parsimony precludes our postulating a God behind it all.
The Christian God has to many contradictions to be logical, the concept of god or gods is incoherent with our knowledge and understanding of our world.
Debate Round No. 1


What you say is indeed true for the most part. However there is still no sign of any logic being shown to NOT believe in a creator. As you stated that if we saw something in the universe that cannot be explained using our logic then God would be the most logical conclusion.
But that is exactly what is happening 24\7. Nothing about the universe is logically sound when you come down to what made it or how it came to be. Or how about the fact that us on Earth exist? Out of the 300 Sextillion stars we have visibly seen Earth is the only one that we have found so suitable for life? Yes we have found potential planets that we could easily terraform to our needs but none that is habitual currently but Earth. If you redid the Big Bang it is practically impossible to get another Earth that is just the right distance from just the right temperature sun that is just right in size and the fact everything to eclipses or the fact that Jupiter is just the right size and gravitational pull to block majority of any meteors. Yet an Atheist says it is more likely for this to be random without intelligence behind it rather than someone making it? In fact no Atheist can logically explain the "first thing" as it is logically flawed to say something created another. This pushes you to two different directions in the so called logic.
Einstein has told us nothing can be made nor destroyed along with man other theories of his that are respected. Copernicus told us that everything in our universe follows the same laws and that we are heliocentric, The world naturally follows his model hence both of these people have developed our natural logic that everyone on the planet mostly uses! Religious or Atheist we all respect these scientist. However our Logic comes to a contradiction when you put them together. Ask yourself is there an end to the universe? No matter the answer one of your basic logical thoughts will break.
Ask yourself what the beginning of the universe was? No matter the answer the logic becomes flawed. Big Bang or not, what made the energy for it to explode, how did it get there, why did it blow up 13 trillion years ago or something instead of 20 trillion or 50 trillion ect...? Atheism would claim that the Big Bang just what? Appeared outta nothing? None of that is logical, only having a creator would make it logical, someone that can fix that which is illogical.
"If we see nothing in the universe that cannot in principle be explained by natural processes, the principle of parsimony precludes our postulating a God behind it all." You say this but those things are here! You can't say that somewhere out in the universe our laws don't apply so everything still works out because the Copernican principle already stated that everything follows the same laws. So by saying something can not follow physics breaks a principle and our "logic".
I have heard Atheist say many things about God(s) being illogical yet no proof is given of their own logic, they nitpick out other beliefs but no matter what method or equation an Atheist can make will never disprove God. Because God is more of a logical solution. Evolution is a method not a "How". It could show how God made us for all we know. Maybe its true, maybe its not, either way it is logically flawed when it is not created by something else. Evolution is completely dependent on there being something before it, something to evolve from. Well you can go further and further back but you will still need something to go even further back in the end. You can say that single cell organisms were made by chemicals, but where did the chemicals come from? You might say they came from the base atoms. Well where did the atoms come from? You might say it came from the Higgs Boson particle. Well where did that come from?! You see? Nothing can make sense without a creator, without an intelligent God.
Literally, the only thing that can make logical sense without a God is indeed Nothing itself.
Lets say when you were born, you were separated from your parents and never met them, there was only children the same age as you and none of them had parents either. From this you could naturally assume there is no such thing as parents, it would be illogical for someone you've never seen before to exist. However a long time into the future you discover that humans can give birth, now you would see that your past logic was so very flawed. Same thing for us in regards to God.
Not to long ago the concept of a bacteria was nonsense. Who would ever believe there are millions of living creatures on them right now? Why? Because we couldnt see it. Just like when a teacher told a young student. "Do you see God?" The boy responded "No." The teacher said "So he must not exist." A girl said to the boy "Do you see Teacher's brain?" The boy said "No" with a laugh and so the girl said "Then teacher must not have one." Even kids get have more logic than most nowadays.


Atheism is not evolution, atheism is not cosmology, atheism is not science, atheism is having no good REASONS to believe in any gods. Reason is man's tool of understanding. Reason is the process of thinking. Its fundamental attribute is clarity. The use of vague notions, fuzzy feelings, or "instincts" is not reason. Knowledge is knowledge about reality. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms.
I used to be Christian, devote Christian, then I went to collage and interacted with intellectual thinkers, became self aware, learned critically thinking and intellectually honest made me question myself and how I think. I came to realize that no one can claim to know god or claim to know what god is, any such claim is made through ego, arrogance and ignorance, and is not logical.
Debate Round No. 2


You are exactly correct on many things in your statements, however do you not see the very fact that using the critical thinking that you yourself posted does not work with atheism?
CLARITY: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example? Atheist says there is no God. Can you elaborate on that, or show me a model of how that would work with no creator?
ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true? By showing the math of the Big Bang or whatever you so desired can that disprove a God? Or simply prove how he did it?
PRECISION: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific? Can an Atheist give more precise details on how existence is logically possible without a God?
RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue? Is what your proving truly pertaining whether there is a God or not? Or is it merely a guess of a method?
DEPTH: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors? Any answer that I have been given from you do not go into depth not do they directly answer.
BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of . . .? The view point that there is no logical reason of a God that I hear from you time and time again is not taking into consideration the actual facts that are out there.
LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this, and now you are saying that; how can both be true? As we have already discussed, Atheism is shown to be illogical according to its own facts. I showed you two simply basic laws we all know, Conversation of mass and energy as well as the fact that physics applies everywhere. However this is a contradiction as it would mean no where is it possible for anything to be created under any circumstance. Then how did we come to be?
FAIRNESS: Do I have a vested interest in this issue? Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others? This may be the only thing Atheism and you have cleared. The fact that you are interested.

Now for God and using critical thinking.
Clarity: There are two ways to look at it, either God doesn't follow our physics which would be as illogical as to us as our own laws of physics or God is within everything and is everything. Maybe there is a base factor within us all that is the intelligent creator. For a model I could create something using my intelligence like anyone else can. However Atheism cannot show how something is invented without intelligence.
Accuracy: Yes as we have seen a God is just as likely if not more likely then Atheism. How could we test this? Many things are already testing it, CERN is looking for the God Particle, or you could look somewhere else.
Precision: Everything in this world is designed, from your DNA to the Electrons and Protons of every atom, they work as Ones and Zeros like a computer code.
Relevance: Yes what I have said does show how a Creator is much more logical and sound while a random event happening that if the moon was a hair breadth smaller we would never have an eclipse of if the Earth spinner any differently then the moon wouldn't stay in orbit.
Depth: In fact God can indeed explain every miscalculation in math that is confused on how everything came to be. An creator welcomes many new ways and thoughts rather then the dead end of nothingness.
Breadth: Do I need to consider other view points? I am and have. However every views eventually leads to the fact of a Creator.
Logic: Yes a God is logical, in fact what is illogical about things that are obviously well designed being built by something intelligent? It would be crazy to believe it's all random.
Fairness: Yes I do believe I am by using the same standards as you and having great interest in this.

As you can see Atheism does not pass Critical Thinking while Theism does. There are many more views and ways people could answer the questions but I as a normal person answered to the best of my ability. So far I have not see a shred of logic behind Atheism except sheer denial. Where is the proof of God? Everywhere my friend. Everywhere. Why is Earth the only Planet out of 300 Sextillion that we have seen to support life? If it was random it should have a percentage or rate at which life bearing planets form. However that is not seen, but if it was in the future, how would it disprove God? Also if you follow seeing is believing then God is more seen rather than the lack of. However as I said nothing can disprove a God and by Science, if it isn't disproven then it is true.


In asking whether a claim is rational, one must ask whether or not there are good reasons to believe the claim is true.
There is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence. the redefining of God into an abstract principle -- so abstract that it can't be argued against, but also so abstract that it scarcely deserves the name God.( eg; god is in everything)
Belief in unverifiable supernatural entities is not rational.
When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a very noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them.
Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural or religious one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it's actually caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"?................Zero, exactly zero.
When you look at the history of gods we see that man has invented thousands of god over thousands of years and all have been myths......all.
We disagree so radically over what god is because we aren't actually perceiving anything that's real. We're "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brains that's wired to see pattern and intention (even when none exists) is wired to see and believe.
God can not be proven by science which is the main way we study and understand our universe or natural world. There is no theory of god, there is no science of god, only belief.
There is no conclusive logical argument forthe existence of god. His/her/its existence is continuously debated.
There is no comprehensive definition of god. There are many definitions for the same god as there are gods. This is problematic if one is to ascertain the characteristics of god to judge if god exists or not.
Theists should think of a god they don't believe in and ask why they don't believe in it. Some may answer that their religion teaches them not to. Others, however, will respond that they have no reason to bother and/or they have good reasons to think that that god does not or cannot exist. Well, atheists don't believe for the same sorts of reasons. This helps reveal the fact that theists and atheists aren't always as far apart as they sometimes imagine. Most theists are monotheists, which means that they reject all of the tens of thousands of alleged gods except one; atheists simply don't make an exception for that last one.
If there's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, then there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods. Therefore, atheism should be adopted for purely pragmatic reasons.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarium 8 months ago
I am glad that you stated there that theism is just as illogocal, because i completely agree with you - both sides are just as illogical as each other - one just seems nicer cos you have the invisible friend you cannot show or talk to anyone with. (Really basic break down there, not intending to be offensive haha)

I understand where you are coming from, now i can see what you mean i agree, Agnostic views and a good moral code ethic that you have personally assessed and accepted - then try and prove which one is right, that is our most logical option.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
P.S.S wow just realized my comment was kinda hard to read xD Well I how you understand atleast what I was trying to say. Simply put both adopting Atheism of Theism would be equally illogical since they are impossible to prove or disprove in our world and current logic. Hence forth Atheism is would be illogical as well as Theism is illogical to most. So really the best way would to be to identify as not really knowing what's true because logically we don't! Lol you can't say God doesn't exist logically but we can't necessarily say God does exist logically. Henceforth Atheism is indeed illogical. That is if one desires to say that since we don't have anything we've seen or experienced to prove a God then their cant be one. Well we haven't seen nor experienced anything that would show we don't have a God.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
I hear you, and remember I am not talking about taking up a religion here. Nor is that what I am asking. And as I was saying humans appear to have many things that give them purpose and life, I see yours is you yourself. There isn't anything new wrong with that, simply what this debate is make one who identifies as an Atheist meaning the don't belief in an intelligent designer. I am not saying it would be 100% logical for them to adopt a religion instead however it is 100% logical to not deny the possible exist. As you said neither side can be proven therefore how is it anymore logical to adopt Atheism than Theism? Henceforth something like being Agnostic would truly seem to be the most logical however the belief that nothing created us is without a doubt illogical. Also a bit side track here, when you say we progress but God does not because how could you progress perfection. 2 answers to this with us taking the assumption God is real: Progress is a part of perfection, God states often (taking the Christan view) that he will do something new, which he always begins finding new things to do. Stagnation and the like always leads to one path, to nothing. That is how I suppose the 'sins' are defined. These that are disfunctional and lead us to nothing. Secondly God created us, is that not progression? Again from the Christian perspective God has progressed throughout the Bible, like when he regretted creating us when we betrayed his trust and the world was consumed with evil. Some may ask how a Omnipotent God could regret, it's just because even if he knew the answer he had faith in us. He created us with the ability to do anything that includes doing the impossible. Yet again all simply under the assumption God is real. However yet again denying or accepting God as we have seen cannot be proven with logic, hence both would appear illogical. Meaning it is best to adopt a middle man stance to further study both equally.
Posted by Zarium 8 months ago
I get what you mean, and I do feel that others have falling within that bracket (I cannot logically prove god exists, therefor I am Atheist) - However I feel that others have made the conscious decision to follow that 'path'.

I myself do not consider my values to align with any specific religion (both scientific based and religious based) - However I agree with multiple values and codes from many of them.

To me however - People are so used to putting themselves and others down - that we have all lost the internal spark that gave us the power to be great people - and that is Belief.

Belief is thrown around a lot in the context of believing in others - But how often does one believe in themselves?
I do not mean the above in the context that a Vain or arrogant person will believe in themselves, as that is hubris.
I mean legitimate understanding and belief that you can achieve - exactly what you are capable of.
To me, A single person hitting even 50% of their potential, is the true sign of divinity - "See what happens when someone legitimately understands exactly how powerful they are, and Live."

People praise god, or give them credit for greatness around the world, so each time someone is truely exceptional, it gets ignored by saying "Wow, God really blessed/Loved you.".


Each and every person that has ever hit the title of "Genius" to their name, Has legitimately put in thousands - HUNDREDS of thousands of hours into perfecting their 'art' - How dare others take away the hard work of one, to praise another?! - Even if it is a "God".

If Gods are real, I believe the most likely case is that each human is a physical representation of their respective gods (*Ie - their potential) - Each person must be celebrated for their achievements, as that encourages their own growth - Congratulate a co-worker/student, and see how much they improve their performance.

Sorry - hectic day at work, just splurging thoughts, will readdress to see if i
Posted by Zarium 8 months ago
I can see many miss-interpretations there - Whilst I understand where you come from and follow your logical deductions, I believe you have assumed that people believe what you believe, just in a different direction.
My perspective on the matter is different, and I will try and explain in this comments, as I like that you take in what I say and address that while explaining your point as well, it is very refreshing to see :)

I will raise 2 things you said, not to put bad light on your comments, but to show you the difference in the opinions :
"A God is not a religious factor, it is something you have an undying trust and faith that it exist and is needed."
"A 'God' is what gives one life and purpose, one who creates."

These two sentences you wrote resonated within me - Though not for divine purposes. That is exactly what I perceive "God" to be - However, my "God" is not actually a being at all.
It is Me.

I do not have the arrogance to assume that I am a literal god - I am just a human. However I have undying trust in myself, and the thing that gives me purpose and life - is myself.
You will say that God made man, which cannot be proven either way.
The thing I can prove, Is that my parents made me, and their parents made them, and repeating to the abyss.

From this, I can logically deduce that *we* (ie - humans) - Created this.
If we are that good at creating people, and we have found exactly how this occurs between 2 people, then what stopped *us* (ie- humans) from creating ourselves in the first place.
Following logic and science - I have seen enough of this first hand and it has been recorded in each birth that people were the primary pushers for this.

People seem to expect that humans appeared exactly as we are, and have not progressed since there - This is not the case, If we were created in 'gods image' - then is he not progressing technically? How can one improve upon perfection?

Logically that does not make sense.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
Though Zarium,

Is the reason that since one isn't sure they might as well adopt Atheism logical? For pragmatic reasons would you not just simply search farther and farther into a Creator now that we pretty much have established that there is no other way. Since we already have more proof for a Creator isn't it more logical to search that out rather than saying it's not good enough and pushing it away? I can understand how being Agnostic is logical under what Con states but I have yet to see any logic behind being Atheist and dismissing the existence of a God. As you said neither can ever be truly correct hence it would be most logical to adopt a middle man approach such as an Agnostic but an as I have said, it is very illogical to be an Atheist, meaning you deny all exist of a God/Creator. With 0 logic supporting Nothing creating something and a common sensical logic that there is a Creator wouldn't it be more logical to not deny the existence of a God, but instead be more curious and accepting of the idea? As Con stated an Atheist is one of the two: someone who lack belief in the existence of God or someone who disbelieves God exist. But under these circumstances wouldn't won have a more logical approach of believing a God COULD exist? But an Atheist as defined by Con does not believe that. So which is more logical, to out right deny or believe that it is possible?
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
No problem and if Con had made your argument then the debate may have went a different direction, such as why it has to be 'God' is simple. A 'God' is what gives one life and purpose, one who creates. In a sense we have many 'Gods' in this world unintelligent and intelligent. For some people money is their God, others society and social networking may be their God. You parents may be your God, however the Creator must also be a God as it gave us every possibility and purpose to choose from. It gave us life. Hence forth is a God. This may be why almost every religion out there has so many Gods to represent everything that can rule our life of give our life purpose. A God is not a religious factor, it is something you have an undying trust and faith that it exist and is needed. For an Atheist the Big Bang and many Quatam Mechanics is indeed their God but an unintelligent God. I am claiming the Creator of God must have been intelligent hence believe long in the lack of such Creator is illogical. As you said "If all we know, and all we have seen - fits within the relm of 'reality' - then a being controlling it outside of our reality, is the least logical option". however firstly it was never stated our God/Creator was outside of reality, secondly we have observed more than anything to prove a intelligent design rather than a random event. How about the water cycle for instance? How about the fact we are breathing? We can only breath because the Union of plants and us humans. A perfect balance. Want to know what would help prove Atheism? Going against the math, things that don't make sense. If it was random we should have many spots and places that don't follow normal logic. However the Coperincan Principle states everything follows the same physics and our 'realm' is based off this logic. So if everything is random then why is every single planet to ever exist a sphere? Random should have many illogical things! It is because of Math that is NOT random. But calculated.
Posted by Zarium 8 months ago
Hmm.. I can see your points regarding the higher being, That makes sense considering we are a race that creates.

However a flip side to it - Why does this supreme being need to be "God"?
It could just as simply be the Gorgons in Quadron X194--2941@ (This is pure speculations). I am not trying to dig fun into the subject, as I believe very strongly like you do that Religion is a cornerstone to our society.
However People are starting to believe that everything un-explainable is God - Where as history, logic and common sense dictate that "If all we know, and all we have seen - fits within the relm of 'reality' - then a being controlling it outside of our reality, is the least logical option".

Completely agree that the debate is at an impasse, as we cannot prove either way - and the option is always going to be there as a potential reason.

However, Atheism is the logical place for logical people to 'base' themselves - for a discussion as difficult and dangerous as religion.

They do not see the reason to found belief on the fact that things "un-provable" are happening - when we can prove that we can prove pretty much everything (some needing time for technology to assist) - But the fact that each thing we have previously though outside our scope of understanding - Has simply been a perspective 'wall' that once actually tackled, turns out to be not only physical, but markedly lacking in 'mystical' powers.

I completely agree with your stance - Both sides "MAY" be right - however I am leaning towards the atheist side in regards to their outlook upon the matter, not necessarily their 'attacking' of other religions.

I apologize if my original post appears I was having a 'go' at you. :)
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
P.S.S Also dont you know that a person with intelligence did create the way to learn and put together Calculus. So to a First Grader it would be a more supreme being with intelligence that made Calculus.... Yet again your own logic shows another example on how a Creator is more likely.

Like the One Punch Man Pic doe :)
Posted by Stonehe4rt 8 months ago
P.S what I meant by no proof of logic behind not believing in God is that Con has repeatedly said that basically "Because we don't know it for sure then it's only logical to not believe. However all our Science is just the opposite! If we can't Disprove something then it is held true. Con seems to be following the seeing is believing, however we have seen ways God could exist but never anything that could show Nothing proofing things into existence. Some people would say the universe created itself however, that requires things like the universe existing first and paradoxing backwards but that's just a way to stall before someone ask about the first loop. Or that the first seconds of the universe somehow lapsed, but what made those first seconds? See there isn't a single theory out there that can show a hint of logic to support Atheism. However there are thousands and thousands of ways a God is real. Con says he disbelieves or lacks the belief that God(s) exist however I am showing how it is illogical for there not to be a God. Con has stated that it is arrogant to say one knows God and ect, however this debate isn't anything about knowing who God is, as he could be anything for all I know. This isn't a debate on religion but logic behind Atheism. Lastly, Con stated that "if we see nothing in the universe that cannot in principle be explained by natural processes, the principle of parsimony precludes our postulating a God behind it all." He himself proves that God is more logical here as there are many things that cannot be explained through principle in the universe, so by this logic God should be the solution correct? Whether you worship the God or not is not the intention of the debate, however to acknowledge that there is a Creator. By your own logic I have time and time again show varies ways that Atheism is illogical however Con has only stated that the idea of God is incoherent and gave us a definition of his logic. That is the defense of Atheism's logic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by matt8800 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con defined ?Atheist? as someone who believed there was no god or simply lacked the belief that there was a god. While Pro made a few good points of evidence that would seem to point towards the possible existence of a god, it is by no means empirical. If there were empirical evidence, all unbiased scientists and thinkers would believe there was a god. The title of the debate is, ?Atheism is Logically Flawed?. Taking the position of not believing something until there is empirical evidence cannot be said to lack logic. Personally, I lean towards Deism but because of the title of the debate and lack of empirical evidence, I have to vote Con.