The Instigator
Praetor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheism is a false.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 570 times Debate No: 34348
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Praetor

Pro

Atheism is the belief, at least for the purposes of this debate, that there is no God.

I submit that there is no good reason to think that a belief in God is false, but there is good reason to think that belief in God is true.

I propose, therefore, that atheism is a false belief.

I cannot obviously evaluate reasons for not believing in God, until someone has stated them. The general atheistic explanation though, is that there is no evidence 'for God'. As such I plan to start my side of the argument by proposing reasons why a belief in God is rational.

Please note this is my first debate on this forum, so please bear with my while I get the hang of everything on here....
Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan

Con

You suggested atheism is a belief yet it is usually because of a lack of belief in god people call themselves atheist.
Just as a none belief in fairies and angels doesn't mean someone is A-fairiest, or an Anti Angelist, there are many things that have zero evidence to support their idea and god is just one of them.

The faithful would feel less awkward if they didn't have to fall back onto jabbing a finger at an old book of questionable origin as all faiths have to revert to, and would feel less insulted if they didn't simply believe just because all their family do.

After all there is no easy way to be told that all the people you grew up to respect including your parents have been wrong your whole life, that is often, I suspect why many shy away and feel offended when challenged by atheists.
Debate Round No. 1
Praetor

Pro

Your argument seems to be that people choose not to believe in God because they find religion judgemental, or insulting to their parents. This in noway provides a good reason not to beleive in God. If I don't like someone, or find someone insulting, whether I then choose to beleive in him does nothing to confirm of deny his existence. The question is, is the good reason to believe God exists, or doesn't exists?

Atheism is the belief, at least for the purposes of this debate, that there is no God.

To paraphrase Dr William Lane Craig, there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God.

Compare for example, the statement "I believe that there is no life on Venus" with "I do not believe that there is life on Venus." If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is life on Venus, and I do not believe that there is no life on Venus. There"s a difference between saying, "I do not believe (p)" and "I believe (not-p)." Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.

Where modern atheist err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.

There"s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called "presumption of atheism." At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that "There is no God" is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that "There is a God." Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God"s existence. He confesses that he doesn't know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.

Why would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? A deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They pretend they are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, "So does God exist or not?"

However, regardless f this, the definition of atheism for the purposes of *this* debate was outlined in the beginning of this debate.

As I stated before, the atheist is generally unable to provide any good reason to think that a belief in God is false, other than the claim that there are no good reasons to think that a belief in God is true. So let me state the reasons to think that belief in God is true.

1. The Cosmological argument for the Existence of God.

The universe exists, and a belief in God provides the best, most rational explanation for it's existence. Atheists will generally argue that the universe is eternal and that is all.

If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers.

This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states, 'The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.'

But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang.

That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing."

However, that makes little sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

C. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless"at least without the universe"because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

That cause, is God. Which makes more sense: that the Christian theist is right or that the universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing?
Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan

Con

Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Praetor

Pro

My opponent has failed to respond to my previous argument, so I shall withhold further argument until he has made an effort to respond and challenge the points I made.
Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan

Con

Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Praetor

Pro

Once again, my opponent has failed to respond to my previous argument, so I shall withhold further argument until he has made an effort to respond and challenge the points I made.
Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan

Con

Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Praetor

Pro

Once again, my opponent has failed to respond to my previous argument, so I shall withhold further argument until he has made an effort to respond and challenge the points I made.
Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan

Con

Zulkefli_Mohammad_Johan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Praetor 4 years ago
Praetor
This debate obviously never reached fruition, so if someone would like to re-stage this debate, please message me...
No votes have been placed for this debate.