Atheism is a lie.
Debate Rounds (5)
I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate.
There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate.
I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically.
My resolution is "Atheism is a lie."
Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution.
Theism. Belief in God
Atheism. Disbelief in God.
A LIE. Deception. Pretending. Acting. Hypocrisy. To decieve another or give another a false or inaccurate depiction of the truth.
Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence
Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence.
Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence.
Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence.
Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not.
Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidence
Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar.
Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists.
Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions)
Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists.
Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists.
Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)
Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.
Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.
Rules. If u do not know how logic works. You lose. If you do not like my definitions, you may propose an alternate definition. However, Both parties must concede to all definitions for any claim to be evaluated at all. If con is unable to find an agreeable ground for each definition cited, there is no point in talking to each other as we are not even talking the same language. Logic.
Basically, Con and Pro must agree on definitions before making any argument for or against. Any arguments ensued without agreeing on definitions is rendered moot.
Report this Argument as flawless.
Atheism is by definition a lack of belief in a deity. It makes this assumption on the fact that no scientific evidence has yet been presented that 'proves' the existence of a deity, and so as a scientist, the logical conclusion is to not believe in the claim. This is the same with all claims that are not based on evidence: the flying spaghetti monster is a favourite in the Atheist community, which proposes that an invisible, undetectable, flying spaghetti monster is in fact living among us without our knowledge. There is no evidence for this claim, and so generally people don't believe it is there. There is a minute probability that it does exist, as there is a minute probability for the existence of any made up idea, however even claiming you don't know is useless as it helps no one to belief in anything and everything. If for example a man bursts into an engineer's lab saying: 'This law of physics upon which you base all of your equations is wrong!' and upon questioning has no evidence for the claim he has made, it does not suit the engineer to put down his pencil and stop his work in the event the crazed man was correct.
Atheists use this logic when claiming that no God exists, as it is not helpful to genuinely contemplate every idea that pops into someone's head just in case that idea turns out true. Being an Atheist is simply hedging your bets with the most (by an extremely long way) likely argument which is that there is no God. Being an Atheist does not mean that you KNOW there is no God, but merely that the likelihood is so very small that such a belief is utterly useless. In science, it is generally accepted when you say 'this ball will fall to the floor' as gravity dictates as such. This is indeed claiming you 'know' it will fall to the floor, even though there is a tiny possibility the laws of physics will change and so the ball never does fall. The same for the reverse, saying 'the ball will not move upwards when dropped' is based on evidence and method, even though a claim without evidence may imply the ball will indeed move upwards. Logic would dictate we believe in things when we have evidence, and so the opposite would be we don't believe things until we have evidence hence 'a lack of belief in a deity'.
If atheism is by definition simply "a lack of belief in a deity "then can I also say that if God is not a deity, then it's quite possible atheists believe in God. Can an atheist believe in God? Any kind of God?
Then by definition, he would no longer be atheist. He would need to find a new label for himself. Since this atheist , does not believe in Zeus Mithra Harrah Hercules and the like, of any other DEity known to man, does he believe in a Monitheistic Spinoza God? If so... Is such a person an atheist at all ?
Albert Einstein believed in the Spinoza vers Albert Einstein believed in the Spinoza God. Although many atheists would love to claim Albert Einstein as one of their own, because Albert Einstein does not believe in a deity, why didn't Albert Einstein call himself an atheist? Why did Albert Einstein constantly refer to God when describing the laws of physics? We all know Albert Einstein was not religious, nor did he worship some imaginable deistic figure, but we also recognize quite clearly Albert had his own version of what he thought God was. Albert also made it clear, such beliefs were personal and not up for scrutiny.
So was Albert Einstein an atheist ? He did not believe in a deity, but he did believe in a creator of some kind . Personal or impersonal was the question. Or was he just undecided?
Huxley, famous philosopher/atheist has recognized this very issue, and Coined a term that properly reflected such individuals. He called them, agnostic. And from that point in time, a lack of belief in a deity or a lack of belief in general was more commonly pointing to the agnostic.
So what is the difference between an agnostic and atheist? I propose that an agostic to somebody who lacks belief, in the sense that lacking implies a desire for fulfillment. The agnostic is not necessary disbelieving, but also unable to believe, therefore being undecided. To lack belief , does not mean one lacks belief in god, but lacks believe in general, including disbelief. Undecided. To say you are an agnostic atheist is simply dishonest.
Contrasting that, an atheist is somebody who has an active disbelief in any proposition relating to creation , purpose, truth, and God. And atheist is not undecided. An atheist has weighed the evidence he thinks he possesses and has made a judgment to not only lack believe in a God, but positively believe in an alternate story. To say that their alternate story is true or even more likely than the biblical God is simply dishonest.
What that story is turns out to be different for every single atheist. Of course we all know , By logic and common sense , Atheist can definitively know the beginnings of the universe, life , or absolute truth. Yet they have some how decided that God does not exist. Likely or unlikely is irrelevant. You may make a decisions based how likely an event is, but once you come to a decision thats the end of discussion. You have decided. To say you have not is dishonest.
How they have decided such is through science, believing that science provides evidences against God. If God is the creator of all life and madder than science can only study Gods creation. Then how does science disprove God? Never has. Never will. To even suggest the notion thya science contradicts God, is not only ignorant, it is dishonest.
1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
(In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:
a moon god
the Hindu god Vishnu
According to the Oxford dictionary, God must be a sentient being. Now it does not matter how you redefine the term God, an Atheist holds no belief in a sentient God. Now if this describes Einstein, then he is an Atheist. If he believes in something else, but calls it God anyway then to each his own. It means nothing in the debate of Atheism. Einstein is irrelevant if we are to be discussing his personal definitions, because this is a semantic debate, which will fail if we change the meanings of words.
The term active disbelief only makes sense if it is disbelief in the face of evidence, when you have the burden of proof if you are to refute it. Disbelief is a neutral position which simply asks for evidence before belief. If I asked you if you believed the seas had just evaporated, right now, you'd say no. This isn't an active disbelief, this is simply saying you had no reason to believe it in the first place, so no effort is made to not believe it. You're whole argument is based around saying Atheists have the burden of proof which is not true considering Atheists make no claims, but rather the religious. Proof is required when you claim somethings's existence without evidence, not when challenging said claim. To say we believe in an alternative story is wrong too, as many Atheists claim no knowledge to replace the void left by refusing God. I say void only to appease you, as I think we have no duty to count God as an legitimate option for the universe's creation. The alternative story would be saying it could be any of the other options, which isn't a story at all. We are not replacing God with anything, as we do not know the actual answer yet.
You claim it is dishonest to say no God and a God have different probabilities. I'll put it this way. What is the likelihood that there is a God? Well a God is simply an idea someone had to explain something, so we can say 1/every single idea ever made that serves the same purpose. It is one of many possibilities. Now what is the likelihood that there is no God? It is every single idea ever made-1/every single idea. This can be shown by guessing which number when you role a dice. The chance you are right is 1/6, the chance you are wrong is 5/6. It is much more likely you are wrong than right. Your version of probability appears to revolve around 'It is either true, or it isn't, therefore it's a 50/50.' which is simply not how probability works. It is far more likely that any claim without evidence is wrong that it is right.
It is completely wrong to say a decision rules out any likelihoods. We make decisions all the time based on likelihoods, be it crossing the road assuming we won't be hit, to insuring your house even though the world could end tomorrow. You make your decision because of probability, and so it plays a big role when you make your final move. You go outside saying 'The world won't end, so I'll keep insuring my house' and rightly so, because to stop everything you do in the event that the extremely unlikely could happen would lead to chaos and madness.
Science doesn't disprove God, as I have said you can't prove a negative, however science is based on evidence and probability. All constants in equations are based on the idea that they do not change, not that they will never change, but because it is extremely unlikely. Science contradicts God, because science relies on high probabilities and evidence, which comes up short when it comes to God.
In summary, Atheism is lack of belief in God because it is extremely unlikely, which justifies refusing a notion rather than saying you don't know, as if you are to say you don't know for God, you must be consistent with all other ideas regardless of probability, leading to no developments of any sort ever. You won't go outside lest you are struck by lightning, you won't eat lest the food be contaminated (one with a higher probability), you won't even live your life as you may wish, because if we are to consider everything regardless of probability, the world may end at any second, and so life immediately becomes meaningless.
1. Dictionaries are good sources of reference and give us "definitions" so as to give us a good idea of what the word might ACTUALLY mean, but dictionaries do not define things absolutely.
This may be a confusing notion, but imagine a Cat. A dictionary says "feline animal." So if someone who has never seen a Cat, reads a dictionary "definition" of Cat, will Oxford be able to define exactly what a CAT is, so the reader could imagine it in his mind and "KNOW" what a Cat is?
Absolutely not. The dictionary gives us a reference idea of the word in question, Cat or God. IT does NOT DEFINE the idea or thing itself. So , if the dictionary cannot accurately define "cat." why would you assume it can accurately define "god?"
2. Now, I am giving Con some credit and I AM ASSUMING that Con knows dictionaries don't give us absolute values for definitions, so as to give us clear notions of what something is and is not. Con further goes on to say (and I paraphrase) " We all know what God you are talking about , its all irrelevant, atheists disbelieve a Sentient God!" So, despite even providing what Oxford means when the dictionary says "god", Con's attempt to Clarify what HE means is evidence that
1. Con does not "know" what God concept Pro is even talking about.
2. Con cannot "know" what God concept Pro is even talking about.
3. Yet Con assumes to know, exactly what God Pro is talking about
4. The concept of God has never been defined so unless I define it first, Con can never disbelieve MY God, Albert's God, or the Christian God on the basis of evidence or lack thereof. One can only assume disbelief on the mere conjecture of likelihood based on personal experience. This is therefore, undeniable ignorance against the claimed God. Whichever that God may be. Each claim requires its own evidence, Each claim being entirely different, and the notion of God being entirely different for each religion as well as each INDIVIDUAL.
God CANNOT be defined. TO imagine God comprehensibly is your imagination, indeed. Nothing more. Then if all you have done is imagined God in your mind,, or your idea of God, then how will you justifiably ask for, scrutinize, weigh evidence? Does not all of it rely on...your subjective imagination of whatever you believe to be "God"?
Clearly, this is an idea (who ornehat God is) that even theologians disagree on, despite the constant imperialist need for orthodoxy within power structures. However, if my above logic is true, which I am pretty sure it is,, lol, No orthodoxy can provide us with a definitive, comprehensible or KNOWLEDGEABLE defintion of God.
Dont ever let an atheist say "your God is imaginary" because in fact, only HIS god can be defined as such. By his own acknowledgement.
The logic above only bolster C1P1 of my argument.
The attempted obfuscation of the TRUTH, can be readily discerned by my opponents claim that
" We are not replacing God with anything,.... "
Yet only a few lines down.. he goes on to say
"Well a God is simply an idea someone had to explain something"
So he says one thing in one paragraph. Yet the very next paragraph determines God "probably" doesn't exist.
In the previous paragraph con admits to C1P1 by saying "as we do not know the actual answer yet."
So, Con is saying, no one can KNOW if God exists or not, yet...for some odd reason, Con seems to believe he has plenty of reasons to not believe.
First Con brings up probabilities. Probabilities are not evidence of anything, but the probability of an event happening or not happening. Since the world and you exist, the probability of there being creation is 100%. it already happened. and we know it happened. HOW it happened... as Con admits.... no one knows. In determining the likelihood of HOW an event occurred, one cannot consider statistical probabilities to provide ANY insight. Because we all know how IMPROBABLE the creation of the universe and life was. I believe its a 1 out of 10 to the 230th power. thats 230 0's behind the 1. thats a 1 out of Gazillion chance that YOU exist. Is Con making the argument that he doesnt exist?
Probabilities are a broad spectrum of POSSIBLE outcomes or events. This means...no matter how many different possible events you consider, 5 or 10 or 100000000000000000, ONE possibility out of all those other possibilities will be TRUE. There is always something, rather than nothing. If you say ALL possibilities are wrong, then you deny existence itself.
"It is completely wrong to say a decision rules out any likelihoods.We make decisions all the time based on likelihoods, be it crossing the road assuming we won't be hit, to insuring your house even though the world could end tomorrow. "
Con asserts a straw man here, as he misunderstands what it is I am saying. If you consider various possibilities, and choose ONE and that is your decision, then FOR CON, all other liklihoods have been eliminated, or in the least placed below the one he chose. when you Cross the road... you decided "you will not be hit" and you crossed the road. Even if other possibilities exist (obviously), the one who crosses the road has DECIDED that other possibilities are less likely to occur (than successfully crossing the road.) In the road crosser's mind, he does not BELIEVE he will be hit. is the point. HE will lookout for RISK or oncoming traffic, but he will move forward with FAITH that he will not be hit. Likewise, Atheism BELIEVES in evolution without God, and they have FAITH that God does not exist.
Further... Con goes and creates more confusion and lies.
"Science doesn't disprove God," then saying just a few lines down..
" Science contradicts God because science relies on high probabilities and evidence, which comes up short when it comes to God"
So science doesn't disprove God,,,yet contradicts God.
This sounds like a bunch of nonsense. First of all, as well we BOTH AGREED, God is an undefined creator of the universe and life. God could be anything.
Then if science doesnt KNOW how life and matter began..... how is science contradicting God?
Isn't science only a tool for finding the beginning of how life and matter began?
Then that means science is only a tool for finding that which we call "God."
Then how does a tool used to find something..contradict the very thing its looking for?
Indeed if there is a God, it would be impossible to define it, however we have defined it. If what you believe in doesn't fall under the definition of God, you can call it something else. You appear to be saying 'checkmate Atheists, you claim you don't believe in God, but my version of God is Newtons first law, so in fact you do!'. Clearly I don't understand what God concept you are talking about, considering it is YOUR concept. If your version of God is not compatible with what is generally accepted, maybe you ought to call it something else.
'One can only assume disbelief on the mere conjecture of likelihood based on personal experience.'
Again completely wrong, likelihood is not based on personal experience at all. If I win the lottery with one ticket, and lose it with another, it isn't a 50/50. No personal experience is required to say that a God is an unlikely cause of the universe. Without evidence, everything is equally unlikely, and so we should believe nothing until we have just cause.
'Does not all of it rely on...your subjective imagination of whatever you believe to be "God"?'
Only if what appears before us is what we generally define as God. People don't generally define God as non sentient, and definitions are anything we say they are. If we are faced with what you call a 'God', we wouldn't call it a God because you appear to have a different definition to the rest of us.
'Dont ever let an atheist say "your God is imaginary"'
And... why not? It is much more likely that whatever you believe in is imaginary than that the laws of physics are wrong. The laws of physics are tried and tested, which can't be said of this God, and so imaginary is the most logical conclusion. If I said the dead speak to me, it is likely in my head too. It is far more likely that I'm imagining it, than the dead coming back to life.
'he attempted obfuscation of the TRUTH, can be readily discerned by my opponents claim that
" We are not replacing God with anything,.... "
Yet only a few lines down.. he goes on to say
"Well a God is simply an idea someone had to explain something"'
Now this is just nonsense. We don't replace God with anything because we have no explanation for the beginning of the universe. God is an idea someone had, and an Atheist says 'I don't know'. It would only be replacing it if the Atheist were to give a different idea, which they don't.
I have plenty of reasons to not believe in God because there is no evidence. Logic dictates that we believe things when we have evidence. I take it you don't the moon is made of cheese, although at this particular moment in time it could be. Just because it could be, that doesn't mean one should believe it.
I don't know where you came to the conclusion that I don't think I exist. Our existence is extraordinarily unlikely, but we only believe it happened because we have evidence and proof. Just because something can happen, that doesn't warrant its belief. If we had no way of knowing if we existed, then I'd say the same about us. However we do have proof, and so the obvious conclusion is that we do exist.
'ONE possibility out of all those other possibilities will be TRUE'
True, however this does not warrant us picking one of those possibilities for the sake of it. If you role a dice and someone calls 'six', that is one possibility. However what justification does he have to call six? There is no reason for him to call six, even though it has to land on one number. The same applies to this. Just because one possibility out of man MUST happen, that does not mean we should guess any. If you were asked if it were likely to be the number six rolled, you would say no. It is extremely unlikely that your guess is correct. As a result if someone said 'Its going to be six', it wouldn't be irrational to say 'No it isn't' because 5 out of 6 times you would be right. Now you would be silly to do it in this case considering 1/6 times you will lose. However imagine it was a trillion sided dice. Now saying no it isn't seems like a much better choice.
As for the straw man, I apologise I did misunderstand you and please ignore what I said, thanks for the clarification. However you do claim it is faith that leads to Atheism which is still wrong because Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. To call it a belief would be like saying 'Not collecting stamps is a hobby' or as Bill Maher put it 'Abstinence is a sexual position'. As a result to call to a belief is very misleading. Atheists have a lack of belief, not a belief.
' So science doesn't disprove God,,,yet contradicts God.
This sounds like a bunch of nonsense'
Well a contradiction is just a logical incompatibility between two things. A logical incompatibility does not equal disproving, as logical incompatibilities can often just mean our science is wrong.
Again you say God is undefined, I disagree, God is defined extremely broadly, and any deviation from that should not be called God. God could NOT be anything. Much like a car can not be anything. Just because you want to use a word for everything, that does not mean the definition changes.
Science contradicts God because of the general acceptance that God is outside the laws of physics, which would not make sense from a scientific perspective. Science is not a tool for finding things, it is a tool for explaining things. Explaining God is impossible if God is outside scientific rules, hence the contradiction.
Just because you want God to mean this, that, and the other, that doesn't mean everyone else is wrong when they use it with its most common definition.
chipmonk forfeited this round.
My opponent takes charge to find dispute with the terminology God. I have only defined God is the creator of life and the universe Or all known matter thereof. My opponent wishes for me to concede that this definition must include being "sentient" in order to "call" the creator of all known matter as "God", in the way most religions propose.. I hope this is correct.
Allow me to clarify my position for allowing such a broad definition of God, without including the notion of being sentient. To be sentient, means that it must consciously think and feel. Although we all describe God as thinking and feeling various notions , if we were think of God to be created and man's image, like Zeus, a deity, this would be a laughable notion. No one believes in zeus any more.
Why is God different from Zeus? Simply because thanks to jewish religion and philosophy, God cannot be made in man's image., but the other way around. We are made in his. Now, without knowing God's "image" how are we to know in what way our image is made from "God's"? Which part of being a human can be said to be MADE in "God's image"? Many like to say it is our sense of morality, but biblical teaching also teach us that morality was not made within us, but acquired by "eating of te fruit." So to be made in God's image must mean something else. I contend it is our ability to use words, symbols, semiosis and therefore create new things.
If this could be said, then it begs the question, why must God be sentient? Why must God be ANY one thing that humans perscribe TO him ? Aside from being the creator, ie. Father or life?
And if God created life, and exists outside of life, why must we define God to also exist with thoughts and feelings that are defined in the same way ours are? Within a space time continuum. If God exists outside of space and time, his thoughts and feelings are not bound by any known phsysical laws what so over, Then how do you know what God's thoughts and feelings are really like? Thoughts and feelings outside of space and time may very well be like the physics of nature. Eternal yet reflecting semiosis. How do you assume God's sentience is...anything like our own? It could verywell be , the Laws of physics are governed by God's thoughts. And Gods very thoughts created all known and unknown physicsl laws. After all, it is God we are talking about.
So I propose the definition that Con provides us with, God bein sentient, is not a willful obfuscation , but a misunderstanding about what Modern humans commonly understand when referring to God, atheists often take the notion of God or Deity from video games or movies, and readily apply it to real life. However, if one detached themselves from the activity of cleansing your understanding with brainwashing mediums, and took a closer look at what the bible or any religious teaching conveys, it cannot be understood that God is a deity. In fact, the Old Testament bible which appears the same time of Zeus, specifically tells ppl 1.not to worship any idols 2. Not to create any images made to worship idols or gods. This is a tradition that reflects the elimination of deistic traditions. 5000 years before any atheist thought of it.
This rabbinic tradition is what allowed for the deliverance of Christianity, while establishing a framework for a non-deistic monotheistic God. The notion of sentience comes along with the various ideas that God speaks, and wants a certain lifestyle from his created earthly inhabitant. This idea that God speaks and hears, quickly becomes understood as God being sentient in the same way that humans Are. With physical boundaries and Temporal limitations. This assumption that God is a physical entity contradicts the modern monotheistic concept of an An immaterial and eternal God. Simply because this God is described as being "immaterial" or "invisible", it does not mean that you can therefore imagine God to be Zeus and he is whatever has not been seen. If we assert God is invisible, yet exists everywhere, it only asserts a quality about God like it is a description about air. The invisibility does not define Air. Nor does it allow you to imagine a desitic figure that created the wind. The air is invisible by nature.
In light of the above FACTS, it is hopelessly concluded that God has NEVER been conclusively defined or accurately imagined by any human mind known to man. With the exception of a few alleged people -Known as prophets , buddhas, and christs. These are typically the founders of a religion, not the perpetuators. The founders propose a definition of God for all to adhere to, yet the founders themselves never DEFINED God. All they did was help people understand Him better.
Thus, any atheist attempt to disclaim their belief about God based on evidence is a lie. My opponent claims "i have plenty of reasons to disbelieve God because there is no evidence for God ." This is illogical. How could there be plenty of reasons yet no evidence? This is only one reason based on a faulty assumption. The assumption that God has been defined, and my opponent knows what evidence to even look for. Unless my opponent claims he is Jesus, and KNOWS exactly who or what this supposed God is, he cannot claim there is no evidence for it.
Also unless my opponent KNoWS exactly how the universe began, he cannot deny that is was created by God, sentient or not.
Thus, the only way my opponent can Deny God, is to lie about knowing or being able to know if God exists or not. As for me, I am taking the humble, sane approach- which is to say that human understanding is limited and therefore I dont know if God exists or not, yet I believe it to be so, given what we understand.
We understand life doesnt just appear from nonlife.
We understand humans are somehoe different from animals.
We understand that the balance of creation is perfect
we understand everything that begins to exist needs cause
And we understand that the universe had a beginning.
We understand such a thing as morality, good and evil.
We understand that we have no explanation for it.
We understand that the human mind is immensely complicated.
We understand that the consicousnes of humans are a mystery still.
My opponent believes Science Contradicts God because God exists outside space and time or known physical laws. This is highly illogical. Because science itself does not UNDERSTAND that which exist outside space and time, it does NOT contradict anything it does not understand . supposedly quantum mechanics also exists outside of space and time, and the physical laws governing particals in the quantum realm are unknown. Then do quantum particles no longer exist?
Certainly they do.
In closing. God may not exist. And the atheist may be right. But to say you have "reasons" or "evidence" to believe such a baseless assertion as atheism is a simple lie. Atheism can only be honest, if it is honest about its IGNOrANCE to the notion of God and notion of creation. To be honest, the atheist must say "i dont know." Anything beyond it such as "reasoning" "evidence" or even "logic." Does not provide an atheist with any actual substance for their assertion That they have evidence agaisnt God.
In effect , an honest atheist =an honest agnostic. Somone who says "i dont know." And even when an honest agnostic utters the word "evidence," you can be sure that honest agnostic has just come a lying atheist.
I am not attempting to define God. I am using what people generally mean when they say God, which is a sentient creator. If he is not sentient, then he is not a God. Regardless you do keep referring to this God as he, which is odd considering you appear to be claiming this God may simply be a force, rather than anything with gender. If I were to discover an equation that would explain how we can get something from nothing. Which explains how matter came to be. Would it be justifiable to call this equation God? No, not at all.
The definition of sentience is 'the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively', which must apply if we are to claim that this God has made us in 'his' image, or indeed that this God loves us. What you are doing, is making a scientific claim, and then justifying it but claiming science cannot provide an answer. You say God exists outside of the laws of physics or words to that effect, which is complete gibberish. You referred to quantum, which does not exist outside the laws of physics. It simply means what we perceived to be 'laws' were not laws, but simply events that occurred consistently in certain conditions. Everything exists within the laws of physics, as by definition the laws of physics are simply what is true. The fact is that we don't understand everything about these laws, and so any claims we make may be wrong. Hence quantum makes no sense if we use constants and rules that apply in normal conditions.
The Old testament says don't worship any 'false' idols, not just idols. The meaning behind it being don't worship another God. Indeed an immaterial and eternal God does not make sense to us, and if it is true, then our laws would be wrong. If the science doesn't add up because evidence appears that challenges a scientific theory, you do some better science. Simple as.
The plenty of reasons for not believing in God are due to probablity. It is extremely unlikely that a God created the world, so when someone tells me it without just reason, I don't believe it. Indeed it could be true, so no Atheist should claim they 'know' there isn't a God. However not believing it is hedging your bets with the extremely likely, rather than with the extremely unlikely. If I were to tell you, you were just about to turn to stone, would you believe me? No. (I hope). Would you even consider the possiblity? Probably not. You would think, what a ridiculous notion, and get on with your day. It is exactly the same with Atheism.
Life can appear from non life, where do honestly think we came from? Humans are not 'somehow' different to animals. The balance of creation is not perfect. These are not things we understand, you are making things up as you go along. There are plenty of explanations for morality, read a book.
I don't think you understand quantum at all. All quantum tell us, is that in different conditions e.g absolute zero, the laws of physics are completely different to how you might normally understand them. That doesn't mean they are outside laws of physics, it simply means what we call the laws of physics don't encompass quantum, which we will change as we learn more.
For an Atheist to say 'I don't know' and be genuine about it, would be for you to actually consider the fact you are about to turn into stone. It is a silly idea based on no evidence, and it is a waste of time and effort considering it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.