There is no god
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- 4,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe. We know how planets are formed from stars exploding into supernovae, We understand how light is created from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms and how these sustain life on Earth(Photosynthesis etc. . . ). Every explanation is completely natural.
There have been plenty of cases(Flat Earth, Creationism, . . . ) where a religious explanation had to be let go for a better scientific one. Yet there has not been a single event in history where we had to let go of a scientific explanation for a better religious explanation.
God has always been used to fill the knowledge gap whenever we did not know something about the universe. "What created the Earth? We don't know therefore God did it" "Oh a supernova created the planets. Well, What created the stars then. We don't know therefore god. Oh the big bang. Well what created the big bang? Dunno so it must be god". Every time a secret of the universe has been uncovered, The answer has never been "God did it" We came to be through the process of evolution, Consciousness/mind is a product of the brain, When we die, Our body decays and we cease to be. No god is required at any step.
This thus leads to two possibilities: Either there is no god or there is a god but that god is useless, It does nothing. At most it might had a part in the starting process of the universe but then did nothing since. It has been so inactive that there is no noticeable difference between that god and a god that does not exist.
So out of these possibilities, The simplest explanation is that there is no god.
Can you please tell me which god you believe in and why? And can you also provide your best reasons for why believe in that god?
In the short description of the debate, Pro wrote “I am a strong atheist ,by that I mean, I have looked at the evidence and have concluded that the simplest explanation is that there is no god.”
“We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe.”
“This thus leads to two possibilities: Either there is no god or there is a god but that god is useless, It does nothing.”
“I am not a physicist so I cannot educate you but they can”
“I would suggest that you write a paper and get it peer reviewed… Good luck doing that.”
(1) “Even if I were to grant to you that the premises are sound, the conclusion only leads to an uncaused cause, not to your fod… This is a non-sequitur fallacy.”
(2) “The big bang did happen but we know that no god created it… if there is a god, then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe.”
(3) Fallacy of composition “Just because everything in the Universe has a cause, It does not mean that the Universe also must have a cause.”
(4) “If I grant you that "whatever being to exist has a cause", then it follows that the creator of the Universe must have a cause too… the burden of proof is on you to prove that(Prove that there is a god and one that is eternal)”
Furthermore, if God did not begin to exist (which is implied by “eternal”), then God would not require a cause according to the Kalam. It is an argument for Aquinas’ uncaused cause (which he wrote is what he understands to be God in the Summa Theologica), which is timeless by definition as there was no time before the universe (and with it spacetime) existed.
Sources:
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
“CON argues that God is not bounded by the physical time-space laws. This makes no sense.”
“This is known as the unfalsifiability fallacy (Defining God in such a way that it is impossible to show it does not exist).”
If your God exists outside the laws of physics, then it is physically impossible for your god to exist.”
"All these people agree with me therefore I must be right"
Aside from Pro’s condescending comments, his only two arguments against the existence of God were based on the physical impossibility of God. The physical impossibility of God does however fail to prove that God does not exist since God is only bound by logical possibility, not by physical possibility. Furthermore, Pro failed to refute the conception of God as the uncaused cause (which Aristotle and Aquinas argued for, although only Aquinas referred to this as God), which is supported by the Kalam cosmological argument, which supports a time-less (as there was no time prior to the universe) and space-less (ditto) uncaused cause.Pro, therefore, failed to fulfil his BoP (since he has taken the Pro position and made the assertion "there is no god") and I have made an argument for the uncaused cause conception of God, which falsifies his position and his shifting of the BoP is unsuccessful as it would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam to argue that because there is no proof for something it does not exist (e.g. we assumed that black swans do not exist... until we discovered them in Oceania).
Starting off glossing over the initial confusion, the main contention pro attempts to show is that the best explanation for the universe is that there is no God.
Con offers the KCA in support of God, it was brief, but well formed.
Pros response was kinda four fold. That an uncaused first cause isn’t necessarily God, That the universe can’t have been created as time came into existence at that point, so there was no before. That it’s not known whether everything that began to exist requires a cause as this is just our observation of our world. The final response from pro is basically stating that the KCA is special pleading.
Cons response is effectively to try and argue that pro has an exceptional burden of proof, where he has to show that God is impossible; the framing of the debate is that “no god is the most likely scenario”. Con points out a set of speculative properties of God being outside the laws of physics. Con points out that despite pros contention - that God does have specific uses.
Pro replies that con is defining God in a way that is unfalsifiable. Pro also points out that pro is attempting to misconstrue the argument. Con also argues that pro is arguing from popularity concerning the reasons why God is useful.
On the three issues of Kalam. Con defends by saying that an uncaused first cause is what God is. It’s hard for me to judge this without a definition of God. I am staggered by the number of times debaters on both sides don’t define terms!
The second point was arguing that God exists outside the laws of physics - which isn’t so much of a defense given the issue of the resolution above.
The third issue I think con confuses - pro is using that things require a cause and the universe may not as an attack on the first premise. Con appears to be arguing the logic applies to the argument as a whole.
Finally con again argues that pro has the burden of proof for the claim.
In the final round, pro argues that the uncaused first cause isn’t God, and the link between God and the cause isn’t established by Kalam.
This is mostly rehashed by both sides in the final round.
Reviewing everything, in the context of the debate as framed in the description and opening round: this debate isn’t about proof or disproof - but of plausibility and as a best explanation.
In this vein, pro outlines a set of good reasons why God not existing is the best explanation. Cons inability to explain how the KCA linked to a being (commonly understood as God for me - as god wasn’t defined), and his repeated reliance on claiming pro hasn’t disprove God makes me feel that pro established his burden.
Arguments to pro.
Conduct: in the last few rounds, pro became increasingly petulant. This includes:
“My opponent seems to master the art of commiting strawman fallacies.”
“I wish you would be honest in representing my argument.”
“Those are obfuscating language(or a "word salad" in lay terms).”
Pro was respectful throughout, and I felt pro crossed the line with his language in the final round.
Conduct to con.
(1) In the first round, CON made a strawman by pretending PRO uses the Dawkins scale even though PRO defined their terms. PRO explained it to CON but CON kept using the wrong definition that PRO said he does not use.
CON also failed to understand PRO's rebuttal of the Kalam and CON kept misrepresenting PRO's rebuttal. PRO properly refuted the Kalam and CON kept going in circles which slowed the conversation down
CON lied by pretending PRO was not respecting the rules while PRO has not done that.
(2) Both sides were heated towards each other(Which is fine in a debate) PRO was misrepresented against from the get go and that can justify PRO's response. CON could have easily responded to the long description but decided to slow the conversation down by not responding and instead just giving the Kalam and accusing PRO of not meeting their BoP.
Tie for the other two since both used similar sources(logicallyfallacious website and non academic websites) and neither made gross grammatical mistakes.
REBUTTAL TO PRO
CON, R2: Pro started with an argument that God could not have created the universe.
PRO, R2: We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe.
CON, R2: ... this argument only argues that a God that is limited by the physical time-space laws did not create the universe, furthermore, it assumes that physical laws had any relevance at the moment the universe began to exist, which is not at all obvious since we do not know what was possible pre-Bang. ... this argument does nothing whatever to disprove a God that is not bound by the physical laws but able to do everything that is logically possible (i.e. omniscient). ... it is not logically impossible for a being to be independent of the physical laws, we can not conclude that such a God is impossible. [I totally agree with CON here.]
PRO, R3: Con argues that God is not bounded by the physical time-space laws. Whenever someone says, something is real, they have a physically measurable way of demonstrating that thing. ... However, if we go with the way Con is defining God, there is no way of measuring that. This is known as the unfalsifiability fallacy (Defining God in such a way that it is impossible to show it does not exist).
... Con ... defined a god whose existence can neither be proven true nor false. I said that I have concluded that the simplest explanation is that there is no god but I could be proven wrong. It is impossible to know for a fact that there is no god for one simple reason: There are millions of definitions that people have made up for the god they believe in. For me to prove that there is no god, I will have to refute every single one of them here.
When we say something exists, it is implied that we mean it exists within space and time. If we define God as existing outside of space and time, how can we demonstrate it? We only have tools available within space and time. We know of nothing that exists outside such parameters. If your God exists outside the laws of physics, then it is physically impossible for your god to exist. [I agree with CON.]
CON’S ARGUMENT
CON, R1: I will present an argument in favour of the existence of God ....
Kalam cosmological argument:
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (since Nothing comes from nothing)
P2: The Universe began to exist. (Supported by the big bang theory and Borde, Guth & Vilenkin, 2003, who showed that an inflationary model of the universe can not be past-eternal [4])
C: The Universe has a cause.
This cause of the universe is what we call God (from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica).
PRO, R2: Even if I were to grant to you that the premises are sound, the conclusion only leads to an uncaused cause, not to your god.
CON, R3: Pro is correct that this does not lead to the conclusion that any specific God exists ....
[I agree with PRO. CON should have made the connection between the Kalam arg. & the god CON is arguing for more explicit.]
PRO, R2: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” and “The Universe has a cause”
This is the fallacy of composition.... Just because everything in the Universe has a cause, It does not mean that the Universe also must have a cause.
CON, R3: My opponent is attacking a strawman. [Kalam] argues that because the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause. The argument does not claim that because everything in the universe had a cause, the universe must have a cause. If the premises are accepted, the conclusion follows ....
PRO, R2: I am not saying that there is no cause behind the Universe rather I am pointing out that you fail to make the case that the Universe does indeed have a cause. [I agree with CON.]
PRO, R2: If I grant you that "whatever being [sic] to exist has a cause", then it follows that the creator of the Universe must have a cause too. So what created the creator?
CON, R3: ... if God did not begin to exist (which is implied by “eternal”), then God would not require a cause according to the Kalam.
I also agree with CON on the burden of proof dispute: PRO said, “There is no god.” CON did not have to prove a god exists, CON had only to refute PRO’s arguments. There wasn’t space here for me to elaborate on that.
PRO accused CON of appealing to popularity for one of his arguments. I agree with CON's response that that was not what he was doing. Not enough space to expand on this one either,.
NOTE: I awarded a conduct point to CON, because PRO made several ad hominem comments.
Argument point:
Round 1 Pro began with a claim and an imperative
1. The evidence says the simplest explanation is no God.
2. I would like you to tell me which god you believe in.
Only the first statement is relevant to BoP. The second one is more of a suggestion of how Con might try to refute the first claim, so it's arbitrary.
Pro did not make any attempt to provide support or elaboration of his claim.
Con's opening was a counter argument stating that Pro had committed an argument from ignorance fallacy and then presented the positive claim that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god. Con makes no direct attempt to support this claim, but rather presents an amended version of the Kalaam that had the god assumption added in the conclusion by definition.
Con wrote the amendment clearly enough where I could intuitively connect the dots, but semantically speaking, the structure was invalid. Con should have use extra premises two draw the god by definition conclusion after presenting the Kalam in order to create proper logical entailment. This somewhat hindered my ability to accurately interpret the data.
Round 2
Pro uses the long description in an attempt to justify his R1. In my opinion, it would have been more productive to put the main premises in the opening argument for better clarity. Pro's long description defines the argument, but does not provide the evidence for his claim.
Most of Pro's rebuttals revolved around claim that the premises were not sound because they made extraordinary claims, but Pro did not explain why this was the case.
One key point Pro made was that The Kalam only points to an uncaused cause and not god specifically. This was important because Con had not properly connected the god assumption as I pointed out before.
Con makes some good counterpoints, but misses the mark as a whole, Con claims that god isn't proven of not being outside of time and space, but provides us no reason as to why this is problematic or even possible. This bordered on incoherence.
Con falsely claims that he need only rebut arguments that Pro makes, this is not the case, Con must make relevant positive claims that are defeaters to Pro's claim, otherwise, Con can never score better than a tie.
Following Rounds.
At Round 3, the arguments starting to circle the drain. No new points were introduced and Neither side attempted to elaborate or amend their initial arguments.
This one is tough to call because I'm not sure either side met their burden. In the end, I am forced to side with Con because There was sufficient reason to show that Con could call the source of universe God regardless of what it was. This may be defining God into existence, but Pro's topic and opening statement invited the opponent to define god and Pro presented the argument as being all inclusive (saying there's not evidence for any God) So Con ultimately defeated Pro's position. Just barely though.
All other points tied.
Con failed to state something that does not abide by physical laws which could have improved his case by providing an explanation of how nothing can come from nothing but that detail was not given. Even though the charcter limit was at 4k. Con only used 1942 characters in Round 1 which was more than enough to provide an explanation for his point of view. There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God. Pro is correct when he said "how does Prime Mover/Uncaused Cause = God? CON does not make that link.". This problem was not addressed. The burden was higher on Con but Pro is right in stating that the link was not found in Con's argument. Pro made this point " then it is physically impossible for that thing to exist." which was not rebutted sufficiently by Con. The problem was that Con needed to find something that is not bound by the physical laws. Con did but did not state how God can be found in it.
Sure this debate could have had more characters but Con did accept the debate I am sure knowing full well the 4k character limit. Pro was not as Con was saying his conduct was which is why it is at a tie.
Everything else is also a tie.
The vote was not moderated. The handle sign was ticked after the period closed. I am aware of the dubiousness of the vote, and it should not happen again.
I noticed it as well but didn't feel like stirring up shit over something I could well be wrong about. However, I reported Raaron's vote well before the debate ended (at least 16 hours, I believe) and there is no comment from a mod saying that the vote was found sufficient although it has the "reports have been handled" tick. I would appreciate you guys checking that vote again.
I'm glad you feel the same way Ragnar.
I know it's too late now, but I believe raaron's vote falls well short of the voting standards. It looks to me like a profile potentially made just to cast a vote on this debate.
I'm new here, so I don't really know the rules, so thank you for telling me.
I know you stand by your vote and that's good for you. I'm glad you feel that way. Based on that last comment of yours, I doubt you yourself know any of these things. Have a good day :)
You did more than to criticize bad arguments. Criticizing your opponent's language is fair game; imputing a dishonorable motive to it is not. Imputing a motive is not a fact. You misunderstood the Kalam argument more than CON, and he called you on it. You said "Fallacy of composition. Just because everything in the Universe has a cause, It does not mean that the Universe also must have a cause.” The argument was that the universe has a cause because it began to exist. You also accused CON of an "appeal to popularity" when he was simply giving reasons why your statement that god would be useless was incorrect. There is much more that influenced my vote, along those same lines. I stand by my vote.
Okay, so? That is not against the rules to criticise bad arguments. I provided evidence when saying my opponent used complicated language to sound smart and clarified what they said for the audience. My opponent misunderstood the first premise of their own argument, which is why i said that they don't understand said premise. You may think it's disrespectful but those are facts. And there is nothing wrong with stating facts and I should not have been penalised for doing so. As they often say "facts don't care about your feelings". Still, its your right to give a bad vote and I respect that. I just think that you misrepresented me with what you said in your vote since I made no ad hominem fallacies and its not deserving of a penalty to get heated. Anyway you made your vote already and I dont have to like it. Have a good day buddy
Maybe I should have said that you were disrespectful to your opponent then. You used sarcasm several times. You also accused CON of using complicated language in order to sound smart. How could you know that? Then, the final insult: "You don't understand the premises of your own argument. I cannot educate you on theology. Go do your research. I don't have enough characters left to explain such entry level philosophy. It would take me 400 more characters to explain the Kalam to you. I have other arguments to respond to." Definitely disrespectful.
I don't think you know what an ad hominem fallacy is.
An ad hom happens when I don't refute their argument because of a third unrelated characteristic. An eg would be saying something along the lines of: "You are wrong because you suck". Just being critical of someone being dishonest is not an ad hom
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Club // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con failed to state many arguments that could've possible helped him.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Which arguments were you hoping for?
Holy @&>/, an amature debate on this topic which entertained me.
I'll vote when on a proper terminal later. But credit to both for the back and forth on fallacies, use of sources (I disagree with posting any in the comments, but if doing so I suggest giving a link to the comment # containing them), and general consistency.
I'd appreciate a vote from you since your DDO record is impressive and you seem interested in this topic
A voting competition is about to start in the Forum. Sign up for that and wait till tomorrow until you recast your vote to gain bonus points in the event ;)
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: Con failed to state something that does not abide by physical laws which could have improved his case by providing an explanation of how nothing can come from nothing but that detail was not given. Even though the charcter limit was at 4k. Con only used 1942 characters in Round 1 which was more than enough to provide an explanation for his point of view. There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God. Sure this debate could have had more characters but Con did accept the debate I am sure knowing full well the 4k character limit. Pro was not as Con was saying his conduct was which is why it is at a tie.
Everything else is also a tie.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote does not appear to weigh any counterarguments from Pro. In order to vote for Pro, the voter must also assess Pro's points, and cannot focus exclusively on Con. This relates to the need to survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in a debate. Pro can cast a sufficient vote by including an analysis of Pro's main points, and then weighing those points against Con's.
************************************************************************
Understood. My apologies, as I am new to this site.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Chitty-Chitty // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: As a believer in God, I argue for Con. I agree that God is not useless, and I can bear witness myself if necessary, because I've been believing for only eight months, and already I can feel the difference that He makes in my life.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter must base their decision on what happened in the debate, and not based on their own personal beliefs about the topic being debated. The voter must justify all points awarded. Site voting policy can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Omar treats everyone who disagrees with him like that, I simply ignore him
I challenged you. Accept it and lets get to debating
Absolutely.
Would you like to debate me on the existence of god?
Perhaps, instead of questioning my sanity, we can move on beyond that. I can see that you are strongly an atheist, and I strongly believe in God. Now, to move onto the scientific part:
The room I entered was a small one, perhaps 10 feet wide and 12-15 feet long, with a ceiling 6-7 feet tall. (Apologies if you use the metric system.) It was placed to the left side of the hall, which was around 500 feet wide, 1000 feet long, and maybe 500 feet high. The room was filled with normal tea-candles, around 30-50 of them, all lit. As the door was open, I will argue that air pressure would not have changed in any way, shape, or form, as air would have cycled through comfortably. The heating system was not on, as it was a decently warm day, with no need for A/C either.
If I recall correctly, common sense and knowledge proclaims that fire produces smoke, which can reduce oxygen intake, which can potentially cause hallucinations. From smoke comes carbon monoxide. But, as I said before, the room was open, so there was no way for the smoke to collect in such a way that I would have hallucinated from lack of oxygen, as it was not a visible thing, but a physical feeling.
For an explanation of air pressure on the body: https://www.acsedu.com/info/natural-health/physical/altitude-sickness.aspx
The only medication I take is Vyvanse, 30 mg of it, which CAN cause psychosis, but describes the only hallucinations felt as "seeing or hearing things that are not real. And this side effect is rare, very rare.
Source: https://www.rxlist.com/vyvanse-side-effects-drug-center.htm#consumer
On another note, I think believing is fabulous. You know why? Because I want to be a better person, a good one, and I'm doing my best to be. Conceivably, the belief in and love for God inspires people to be better.
"I can bear witness myself if necessary, because I've been believing for only eight months, and already I can feel the difference that He makes in my life."
You have completely lost it. I hope you get the help you deserve.
"There is really no explanation but the Holy Spirit."
You are delusional if that is your explanation. No reasonable person who knows what your problem is won't conclude that about apart from Theologians.
Buddy, I have no history of hallucinations, delusions, drug use, or anything that could have given me such a reaction. I don't have any of that now. There is really no explanation but the Holy Spirit.
I don't see how you actually addressed that. Nowhere did you address the glaring problem that is physical laws but you did attempt it by saying it can be broken. I doubt you have an argument that does address that so if you actually had a problem with it do report me if you want because you did not sufficiently address that problem.
"This is incorrect as I clearly wrote that this uncaused cause is what we call God: "This cause of the universe is what we call God (from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica)." Pro is correct that this does not lead to the conclusion that any specific God exists, however it supports Aristotle’s Prime Mover/Aquinas’ uncaused cause.", "It is an argument for Aquinas’ uncaused cause (which he wrote is what he understands to be God in the Summa Theologica), which is timeless by definition as there was no time before the universe (and with it spacetime) existed."
"I showed that this can mean PM and that Aquinas argued that PM = God"
Where?
"There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God." I showed that this can mean PM and that Aquinas argued that PM = God
What in the debate that you had to say about physical laws apart from it being broken?
Where did I say "no example"?
What do you mean by "no example"? Most of my arguments were centred around Aristotle's Prime Mover, isn't that an example?
You seem interested in this topic, feel free to leave a vote.
"There was no explanation but the Holy Spirit."
Delusion. Thank me later.
I'll give you my personal experience with God and His Holy Spirit:
I was in a Catholic church/school for a memorial for an aunt I'd never met. Off to the left side of the hall where they did Mass, there was a small, intimate room dedicated to the Virgin Mary. There was a small, blue-paned window, a statue of Mary, a red-velvet kneeling bench, and a bunch of lit candles.
As soon as I stepped over the threshold, my body immediately felt heavy, like there was not just one soul in it, but two. The feeling almost forced me to my knees, like it had a strength of its own, like it was a spirit. I looked over at the prayer bench, and I felt immediately drawn to it. It was compelling to the point of draining my strength. I turned away and walked quickly out of the room. But the feeling stayed, until I was on the other side of the hall, staring at stained-glass windows. It wasn't quick to leave either, and my knees shook.
Here's the kicker: other members of my family have experienced it. And there was really no explanation. The air wasn't any different, I was completely sober, and I'm the opposite of claustrophobic- I thrive in enclosed spaces. There was no explanation but the Holy Spirit.
King Strawmanner in the house lol. Keep living in your delusion, buddy. I explained my position and refuted your arguments. You've only done strawmans this whole time and you don't even understand the argument you bring forward. I explained to you how the Kalam works and you don't even understand the first premise. As I said, I can't educate you on it. Do your own research
None of your arguments provided any support for your BoP that an omnipotent God does not exist, my Kalam supports the uncaused cause conception of God. Good luck in your future debates.
I said nothing that goes against the rules. Next time learn your own arguments better and avoid strawmanning the opposing side
Thank you for the debate, try not to get personal in debates though, it undermines your arguments and likely makes you lose out on conduct points.
Sources - round 4:
[1]: https://phys.org/news/2010-03-tiny-instant-physicists-broken-law.html
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
All kinds of things are possible. It is possible that there is a flying spaghetti monster that lives millions of light years away from Earth. It is possible that fairies exist in a galaxy far, far away. Just because I said that it is possible, it does not mean that it is the case.
This is how I define a strong atheist = Someone who believes that there is no god.
And I am challenging people here to change my mind by providing evidence for why they believe in a god/gods.
If you want to call me agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist or whatever, then feel free. I find arguing labels to be boring.
I find many flaws in the agnostic atheist label hence why I don't use it. And it is not specific enough to describe my position. Agnostic atheist means I don't know and I don't believe. My position is that I strongly believe in the non existence of a god.
Here is a blog post by someone else on the issue with that agnostic atheist label.
https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2019/02/24/the-logical-ambiguity-of-agnostic-atheist/
In the end, I genuinely dont care about the label argument. Call me what you want, just provide argument for your position so we can argue.
I hope a someone accepts this. Pro's argument is easily debunkable.