The Instigator
logicae
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Eugenious
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,634 times Debate No: 120089
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (51)
Votes (0)

 

logicae

Pro

Hello everyone! Today I would like to make the case for classical Theism, That is the case for God. This question has been debated throughout all of history and so it is quite an honor to continue this great conversation and build upon it in the present day. This is my second debate on this topic. (my first being against omar, The original omar :)

To you who has accepted this challenge, Welcome! I will only propose one rule: Please be mindful of both sides of the debate (including using evidence and reason) for your side and respond to the arguments made accordingly. Clash is important to debate and is where truth is able to be searched and hopefully identified.

This debate I will support two main contentions:

1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There is good reason for Theism

That being said I want to clarify what Atheism I am talking about.

First, The definition of Atheism according to Merriam Webster dictionary is "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" (1) (see citation below)

This entails two different stances: One is an unbelief, Which entails that the Atheist is unconvinced of Theism (which is usually referred to as agnosticism). The other being a rejection of Theism by stating Atheism (God does not exist) to be true.

In this debate we are debating Theism vs Atheism and so there must be reasons to support both sides, Meaning that there must be a statement of fact by both sides, Not just a statement of unbelief as agnosticism.

There was a bit of confusion from my last debate on what both sides were really supposed to do, Here is it outlined clearly:

For side Pro (For Theism): To support (build evidence on) and defend the existence of the Theistic God.
For side Con (For Atheism): To support (build evidence on) and defend that the Theistic God does not exist.

Now that the sides are clarified I will jump to my first contention, That is:

Contention 1. There are no good reasons for Atheism

Atheism relies on a set of realities that seems absurd when you look deep into them. I will let side Con get into this contention (that is, Put forth arguments for why Atheism is true) and I will respond accordingly.

Contention 2. There is good reason for Theism

There are many arguments for God, Many having whole books written on them. For this debate I will bring my favorite:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Where did the universe come from? )

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause

For Premise 1.

We know that all physical things began with some sort of cause, As something cannot come from nothing. To claim the opposite would be worse than magic, As with magic, At least you have the magician. Similarly we don"t observe things popping out of nothing. Simply, Out of nothing, Nothing comes.

For Premise 2.

Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought -Mathematician David Hilbert
(2) (See Citation Below)

In reality we know absurdities such as an actual infinite cannot exist, For example: For today's debate to come from an infinite past requires an infinite series of yesterday's. This would mean that today's debate would never be able to occur as today would only be prolonged time and time again by another past event on to infinity and never occur. But today did happen (and this debate), Thus illustrating this impossibility.

I recommend you check out the Herbert's hotel paradox as my favorite example of this: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=j_q802eboxA

So what does this entail? This means the universe is not infinite, But instead had a start. This is also the best explanation in modern science, As NASA details:

"Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be. The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. " (3) (see citation below)

For the Conclusion:

So something had to create the universe, But is it God?

From the Kalam, We find that this creator must be uncaused, As we have seen there cannot be an infinite chain of past causes and thus a beginning not caused to this chain of finite causes. Changeless and timeless, Because it created time and therefore came before it. Lastly this cause must be immaterial, Because this cause created material.

There are two other important things that also follow from the Kalam:

(1) A Mind:

There are only two things that would fit in this conclusion as the creator:

1. An unembodied mind or 2. Abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects cannot cause anything, So we are now left with a mind.

(2) Personal Cause:

If the cause was a mechanically operating set, Then the cause couldn"t exist without its effect. For example: If there was a mechanical permanent cause (let's say a freezer that was on forever) that made water freeze, Then the water could never unfreeze as the cause is forever making it freeze. The only way our cause of the universe could be timeless and for its effect (creating the universe) to begin a finite time ago, Is for the cause to be a personal agent that is with the freedom of the will to choose to create the effect. An example of this, A man sitting for eternity can freely choose to stand up at any time.

If the cause is permanently present, Then the effect must be as well and so we must have a personal creator.

These conclusive traits highlight what Theists call God, The external, Transcendent, Personal cause.

I hope you well in this debate and equally hope for good clash

To Truth! -logicae

Citation:
(1) (Definition of Atheism)
https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/atheism

(2) (David Hilbert)
https://www. Math. Dartmouth. Edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Philosophy/Philosophy. Html

(3) (NASA and Big Bang Theory)
https://science. Nasa. Gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang
Eugenious

Con

The humorous thing is: I am a young-earth creationist. I belong to the Church of Christ, And I love Jesus with all of my heart. I strongly believe that atheism is terribly wrong as well. The reason, However, That I disagree with my opponent in this topic is that he is using a very flawed definition of "faith. " Now, I know that he said that to be against this resolution, You are supporting atheism. I am going to prove that this position can and will be defended form a CHRISTIAN perspective. It seems that he wants to do a creation/evolution debate, But that idea cannot happen here. Both of his contentions I agree with, And they fall right under my arguments here. If you look at the world's view of faith, You see that they believe it is a "blind leap in the dark. " If you look at some definitions for it, You get things like "A firm belief in that which you cannot prove. " This is quite simply not Biblical faith. Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. " Confidence. Assurance. Can we truly have either of these things if we cannot prove what we are speaking of? Think about it: Do you have ASSURANCE in something you cannot ever prove? Do you have CONFIDENCE in something which cannot be proven to exist? Absolutely not. We have to look here at the BIBLICAL Definition of faith, Which is certainly not what we are seeing here. Now we have to talk about why it matters what definition we use in this topic. I mean, Why do we care how we define faith? Well, We must be careful what points we allow atheists to obtain against us. If we concede that the true and Biblical definition of faith is a "blind leap in the dark, " we let them then think that any time we use the word "faith, " we don't really have confidence in what we are saying. They can then say we are using the "God of the Gaps" method. It really is dangerous to allow these sort of things to be left to the atheists to have a field day with. Now, I agree with the general thought process of my opponent, (it fits exactly with Frank Turek's series: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist), But we have to have utmost care when defining our terms, Or else we allow the Bible to be misinterpreted left and right. It is for these reasons that I stand resolved that it doesn't take more "faith" to be an atheist.
Debate Round No. 1
logicae

Pro

Hey Eugenious, I think you might have misunderstood the topic of the debate. It is, Does God exist? I clearly lay this out in the first round. Now then, I think it is important that you understand that you have accepted side Con, Which, As I stated earlier, States that God does not exist. I think you did not want to debate this side and so I am open to forfeiting the other rounds with you so we can end this.
Eugenious

Con

That, Unfortunately, Is where you're wrong. The exact resolution for this debate is: "It takes more faith to be an atheist. " I am doing my job in negating the resolution by taking the opposite side. I do believe you to be wrong in this matter, As I proved in my first argument. I understand this debate perfectly! If you wanted to have a creation/evolution debate, You should have made the resolution more along those lines. I believe that when you look at the true Biblical definition of faith, Creationists CERTAINLY have more faith, Thus negating the resolution. I will stand by my defense in this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
logicae

Pro

"That, Unfortunately, Is where you're wrong. The exact resolution for this debate is: "It takes more faith to be an atheist. " I am doing my job in negating the resolution by taking the opposite side. I do believe you to be wrong in this matter, As I proved in my first argument. I understand this debate perfectly! If you wanted to have a creation/evolution debate, You should have made the resolution more along those lines. I believe that when you look at the true Biblical definition of faith, Creationists CERTAINLY have more faith, Thus negating the resolution. I will stand by my defense in this debate. "

This argument comes with a great misunderstanding of the word "faith". Faith is to believe. When I say it takes more faith to be an Atheist, I mean that you have to believe more than Theism. The fact that you agreed to my contentions show that you agree Atheist have to believe far more in order for their world view to be correct. Example: Atheist have to contend that the entire universe, All that we have and will ever observe, Just popped into being as if by magic.

I will still offer to resign the last few rounds, But continuing is ruining the point of this debate.

Best,

To Truth! -logicae
Eugenious

Con

Your definition of faith is incorrect. Even the secular definition of faith isn't just a belief. The secular definition is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved, " or something along those lines. You can't use that definition. The true BIBLICAL definition of faith is a belief based on fact and reason. Therefore, We Christians have WAY more faith than atheists.

Next, You said that even under my definition, It still takes more faith to be an atheist. I disagree. I think that the Christian faith is way more complicated than what atheists believe. We have many more things to be proved than atheists.

Finally, You said that to negate the resolution is to agree with atheists, But I want to stress the point that you can negate this resolution from a Christian perspective, As I have already.

Back to you!
Debate Round No. 3
logicae

Pro

"Finally, You said that to negate the resolution is to agree with atheists, But I want to stress the point that you can negate this resolution from a Christian perspective, As I have already. "

-No, The rules clearly lay out the sides, This is a debate on God's existence, Not Christianity's merit.

"The secular definition is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved, " or something along those lines. You can't use that definition. The true BIBLICAL definition of faith is a belief based on fact and reason. "

1. That is not the full definition:

Here is the definition of faith, According to Dictionary. Com: " Faith: confidence or trust in a person or thing"
(https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/faith)

Notice: It does not say faith is without evidence, Faith is just a strong belief, It could be reasonable, Or not, With evidence, Or not.

2. You contradict yourself. You agree with the Bible in saying that " definition of faith is a belief based on fact and reason"
-which I agree with, But you contradict your definition in saying that faith is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved". Facts and reason proof or disprove a belief, The reason why the bible tells you this is to the avoid exactly what you are affirming! That faith is without reason and evidence!

"Christian faith is way more complicated than what atheists believe. We have many more things to be proved than atheists"

1. I think not, If God exists, Then Christianity is the next step (again not the point of this debate regardless). The Atheist on the other hand has to explain the origins of the universe by imaginary means, Ignoring the many questions that it presents: Who created the universe, Since it cannot be explained by nothing? Why are some things objectively right or wrong? Why is anything objectively true at all? Many Atheists either concede and or dismiss these questions, But cannot come with a plausible answer. You agreed with me here, By accepting my two contentions.

2. Unless you think that Atheism itself is more reasonable than Theism, Then you cannot say that they have a more reasonable belief, Thus requiring "more faith" indicating a need to believe a whole lot more in order to blot out God, Getting rid of rational reasoning and explanations for these questions.

In conclusion then, We see that this debate has already been won by side Pro, As con agrees in the rational basis for God, My contentions and conceded my side of this debate. I gave Con a chance to see his mistake, But instead Con continued.

Let's take a look of what this debate is, And how it turned out:

In the beginning I laid out the job of Pro and Con:

"For side Pro (For Theism): To support (build evidence on) and defend the existence of the Theistic God.
For side Con (For Atheism): To support (build evidence on) and defend that the Theistic God does not exist. "

Con agreed to my contentions:

In Con's first speech: "Both of his contentions I agree with"

My contentions:

1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)
2. There is good reason for Theism

This debate can down to whether or not God exists, Con made it about the definition of faith, Ignoring my clarification of the sides in my first speech.

At this point Con concedes the round, Agreeing that Atheism is unreasonable and Theism is reasonable (my contentions)
And thus we see that it takes more faith to be an Atheist.

To Truth! -logicae
Eugenious

Con

"you contradict your definition in saying that faith is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved". -If you actually READ what I said, You'd realize that I was quoting the WORLDLY definition of faith. Please don't twist my words.

And I am doing my job in negating the resolution. I don't care what you said the con side would be defending. I only care about what I am supposed to ACTUALLY defend, Which is the negative side of this resolution. And I have done that so far.
Debate Round No. 4
logicae

Pro

logicae forfeited this round.
Eugenious

Con

"you contradict your definition in saying that faith is "A firm belief in something that can't be proved". -If you actually READ what I said, You'd realize that I was quoting the WORLDLY definition of faith. Please don't twist my words.

And I am doing my job in negating the resolution. I don't care what you said the con side would be defending. I only care about what I am supposed to ACTUALLY defend, Which is the negative side of this resolution. And I have done that so far.

My opponent has forfeited, So I guess it's all over. Thank you to everyone involved!
-Eugenious
Debate Round No. 5
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
Do you understand now what I mean?
Posted by Eugenious 3 years ago
Eugenious
No, No, No. You misunderstand me. When I said "it's all over, " I meant it in the literal sense. As in "the debate's over. " I didn't mean any disrespect, But I think you really misunderstood me there.
-Eugenious
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@Eugenious

"My opponent has forfeited, So I guess it's all over. Thank you to everyone involved! "

Sad that this is all debate means to you.

It seems that you ignore even your own arguments, As to pretend that this debate revolves around you. The reality of debate, However, Revolves around the rules presented in the first round. If you did not want to debate the existence of God, Then you did not have to accept this debate. Remember too that the job of the opposition is to oppose the pro, Not the topic. Otherwise there would be no clash, Something that is quite obvious in this debate. In the end then we see that you have avoided the intended debate in order to squabble about a definition in the header.

I think I have spent enough time yet,

To Truth! -logicae
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Please give a reason why, This is the appeal to authority fallacy. "
You stated a false claim and I gave evidence. Instead of giving your own evidence you concede and attack me based on a fallacy which you do not understand. I am not saying this is true because of some authority saying it. Instead I am saying this source which is backed up by evidence it is right. No evidence has been given by you so you concede. If you bring no evidence then how are you in a position to state a claim about black holes when you do not even know it can be observed?

"proposition that is reached from given premises. "
The problem with this is that there were 2 premises. There wasn't 2 paragraphs of it. That was your addition to the KC argument. If you wanted to define your words sure but you gave extra information which the KC argument does not state.
Example:
"P2: The universe began to exist

Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought -Mathematician David Hilbert"
This is not required for the person to understand the KCA instead you added it in as part of another argument. More like supporting appeal to authority quote but was not needed to help someone understand the KCA states a cause. Instead you added ideas like these to make the KCA more than it actually is. It states a cause if it is true instead you use it to state a creator which is not part of the premises of the KCA. It was part of your added on explanations with the premises making it logicae's interpretation of the KCA.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"It is important that you reply to my responses and not assume my position. "
I give you questions. Granted loaded questions but still questions.

"I conclude God from the Kalam"
KCA argument is this:
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist
C: Therefore, The universe has a cause
What you added on to it was explanations or arguments.

"You dogged my response. The infinite paradox proves the beginning of the universe, The big bang theory only adds more weight to the premise"
I made the claim first. By the way I am not giving an opposing idea instead showing an different viewpoint to yours. It is a theory on how this universe. It does not state this is the only universe or other universes before it were also created by the big bang or if there is a God or not. It only state this universe started with a big bang. That is it. Everything else are other ideas that are not a part of the Big Bang theory.

"the study of the nature of reality and existence, Of what it is possible to know, And of right and wrong behavior"
The problem with philosophy is that it is not a tool to state a study to be right or wrong. Existentialism and Nihilism are still philosophies even if you say they are wrong. A study can still be useful if it is wrong. Philosophy does not provide a right or wrong if it does name me one philosophy that is not helpful when being wrong. If you say a philosophy is wrong how do you measure and name me a philosopher using it to state how wrong another philosophy.

"What I want to know is why you think science is the only way we can find truth, If so, Can science tell us this? "
Science determines scientific fact. Truth is someone's subjective interpretation of information. I didn't say science finds truth instead whether or not something is right or wrong if it is able to. Since it can only observe the natural world making non-observable claim is wrong if you are using science to support it.
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@backwardseden

"I never want a conversation with ---anyone---, And I always dump them"

Ok then, I will let you on your way. Remember to keep an open mind and to be respectful while doing it.

"unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word"
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

@ omar2345

I think it is necessary that we know what direction this conversation is going. It is important that you reply to my responses and not assume my position.

Now:
"Then you admit to using KCA which only states a cause to add an additional argument to conclude it to be God? "
-Please take a look at my response again, I conclude God from the Kalam, Using it as a pointer to God. We use a black hole's surroundings to point to it, The black hole is what we conclude exists. The same goes for my argument for God, Using the Kalam.

"This is dodging the point I made. So you are making a non-observable claim using observable evidence? Would also like to add it is a theory not a scientific fact. Would you also say God is a theory? "

-No, You dogged my response. The infinite paradox proves the beginning of the universe, The big bang theory only adds more weight to the premise, "Not" proves the premise.

"When stating this you did not give me an alternative. I await one. "

1. Philosophy:

"the study of the nature of reality and existence, Of what it is possible to know, And of right and wrong behavior" -Cambridge Dictionary

2. What I want to know is why you think science is the only way we can find truth, If so, Can science tell us this?

"If my source is true then you can't use the black as an example for why is not something different. "
-Please give a reason why, This is the appeal to authority fallacy.

"By you adding the creator to the cause you are adding another argument to the KCA. "

-Again, I conclude from the Kalam, A conclusion is
"A proposition that is reached from given premises. " -Oxford
https://en. Oxforddictionaries. Com/definition/
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Get this and get it good boobala. . . I never want a conversation with ---anyone---, And I always dump them, No exceptions, None when they do not examine evidence that sits right before them and slaps them in the face to 100% prove them wrong such as what you ---always--- do because this thus means that I am far far far too good for you to continue on with anything meaningful as you have thrown it to the gutter, No exception, None, As you are a true smug arrogant coward that is not interested in a decent conversation at all because all you are interested in, Is milking your ridiculous religion for all its worth WITHOUT PROOF of any kind. And all that shows is that all you want to do is be another rubber ducky village idiot spokesperson who wings it without any "evidence". And you haven't a clue within your smugness, At all, What the term "evidence" means. Oh and duh, Its not me who's showed you how god does not exist, The videos done by those who are far far far more intelligent than I could ever hope, They have. And you know what? Some on it even say "I don't know" which is what you should say, And not have a runny diaper for a brain and state something completely false until proven true and ignorant like "God's necessary existence. " And since you stated it, Then you prove it, In which you can't because nobody in the entire existence of the human race ever has. . . Unless you MUST think you are extra special and better than everyone who has ever existed? So go right ahead. . . Test, Demonstrate your god. Then once that's done assert your god. Then once that's done declare your god and do it to scientific communities from around the world of merit so that they all agree. Whatsamatter poopy doll? Can't even come close to doing this? Then stop making bold assertions that you cannot back up WITH EVIDENCE like a typical gunfight in a Yojimbo spaghetti western. Got it snookums?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Correction

If my source is true then you can't use the black as an example for why is not something different.
If my source is true then you can't use the black as an example for why God is not something different.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
That is not the KCA instead your interpretation
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"Because concluding is not adding, But rather showing what the argument proves. "
Then you admit to using KCA which only states a cause to add an additional argument to conclude it to be God?

"-You miss the point of the big bang theory, I am not using it to prove my premise, (I do that using the argument of the infinite paradox) but actually to give scientific backing of the premise, That the universe began to exist. "
This is dodging the point I made. So you are making a non-observable claim using observable evidence? Would also like to add it is a theory not a scientific fact. Would you also say God is a theory?

"No, What is logically "observable", Remember that science is not the only way we can find truth. "
When stating this you did not give me an alternative. I await one.

"God can't be observed, True, But that does not mean he does not exist. A black hole for example cannot be seen, But we can logically prove its existence by its surroundings. "
I have seen you do this twice now. Once here and another in a debate I had with you earlier on but forgot what fallacy this was. This is a whataboutism. Basically instead of attacking the argument at hand you say what about black holes? I would also like to note the ignorance of your statement of the black hole. We can actually see the black hole. Here is a link: How We Discovered the Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy (Astronomy. Com) If my source is true then you can't use the black as an example for why is not something different.

"No, That is the conclusion to the Kalam, A creator is someone who creates, If we conclude that the universe began and thus was created, Then we must have a creator. "
What you don't understand even though you wrote it here "Therefore, The universe has a cause" is that it is the end of the KCA argument. Everything else is an addition to the argument. By you adding the creator to the cause you are adding another argument to the KCA. That is not the KCA instead your interpret
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.