Atheism is reasonably impossible

I do accept.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. The argument that I am about to use is not one that I have found somewhere else. I have created this argument myself, and I have never heard it used it before (that quite surprised me). I have posed this question to a couple of atheists in my class, and they have been unable to answer it. However, we shall see how it shall fare against a more experienced opponent.

Now, I am sure we all know that our universe is orderly, and has many scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Motion, and the Universal Law of Gravitation. We know these laws exist objectively because of the objective effects they have on our world.

Now here's the important part.

We know these laws exist objectively, but they are not actual physical things.

We can see their effects, but see can not actually touch, see, smell, taste or hear the laws themselves.

What are the effects of this in relation to our debate?

We now know that these objective non-physical laws must exist. However, with an atheistic viewpoint, it is reasonably impossible for these laws to exist. Atheism is the non-belief in God, which means no spiritual being can exist. If any did exist, even if they were not omnipotent, they would be in a higher form of being than the physical world, and would not be subject to our physical restrictions. This would therefore make any spiritual being able to be called a God, assuming they were the most powerful spiritual being. Ergo, Atheism requires materialism, the belief that nothing exists but the physical world.

But mere physical matter cannot create laws or rules, as it requires intelligence. Example: We as humans have intelligence, so we can create laws. But a rock cannot create rules and laws, as it is mere physical matter. But there's more. We humans, despite being intelligent cannot create objective physical laws, as any law we make will be subjective. We only have control over ourselves, so we can only make ourselves obey that law. Through that same logic we must conclude that anything able to make an objective law must have control over everything, ie. Omnipotent. So as the last conclusion, anything that is capable of making objective laws such as the laws of science, must be:

1.Non-physical
2.Omnipotent

The only thing that fits this criteria is God.

Also, I would like to point out that if this argument is correct, Atheism is reasonably impossible (see above statement), so to win this debate my opponent must refute my argument.

I'm sorry.