The Instigator
errya
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism is reasonably impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
errya
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,329 times Debate No: 27402
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

errya

Pro

I will be arguing that Atheism is impossible by reasonable standards. I will have the burden of proof. My opponent will only have to prove that Athiesm is reasonably possible, not likely. I would like to make clear that I am not not arguing against the current Atheistic paradigm, simply Athiesm itself.

Dictionary definition of reasonable:

1.In a fair and sensible way.
2.By fair or sensible standards of judgment; rightly or justifiably

Dictionary definition of Atheism:

The theory or belief that God does not exist.

No new arguments in the last round. First round is for introductions only.
emospongebob527

Con

I do accept.
Debate Round No. 1
errya

Pro

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.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
errya

Pro

I have nothing new to add.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
errya

Pro

No emospongebob to be found?
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
errya

Pro

What do you think of my argument? Strong? Weak? Why do you think that? Please post in the comments.
emospongebob527

Con

I'm sorry.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Atheism does not entail materialism. Anyhow, materialism does not state that physical laws cannot exist. Nor does it state that other non-physical "things" like thought cannot exist. You wrongly assume that laws of nature are things like rocks are things. The laws of nature are descriptions.

The next part of your argument just assumes that laws are created. Who says matter can't just behave the way it does (and the laws are descriptions of this behaviour)?
Posted by StreetLogician 4 years ago
StreetLogician
errya and I are debating this at the link below.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
Nah, I'm afraid you can't change opponents in the middle of the debate. You can start a new one though.
Posted by StreetLogician 4 years ago
StreetLogician
I will debate you on this point since your opponent has not replied. Can you change or add an opponent?
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
errya, hope to debate you soon on this ;)

Good arguments!!!

I'll take the con position.

Lemme know! :)
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
I don't contend that I have the burden of proof
Posted by StreetLogician 4 years ago
StreetLogician
The person claiming something exists, in this case the theist, has the burden of proof. If I claim Bigfoot exists, it is up to me to present evidence. Obviously, I would not expect someone to present evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
ok
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
I'm a bit busy today, I will post my argument tommorrow
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
erryaemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeited several rounds and did not provide any arguments.
Vote Placed by Spotchman 4 years ago
Spotchman
erryaemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeited several rounds and did not provide any arguments.