Godless Engineer | Caller FAILS to Prove Atheism is ABSURD in Heated Debate @godlessengineer | Uploaded September 2024 | Updated October 2024, 20 hours ago.
In this conversation, I engage with an interlocutor who attempts to argue for the existence of a god based on logical necessity, while I challenge their assertions by focusing on the lack of evidence for such a being. The discussion starts with the claim that atheism is a flawed position and quickly moves into a debate over the law of the excluded middle. My stance is clear: I identify as an agnostic atheist, which means I don't believe in a god but am open to evidence if it ever surfaces. The conversation shifts into a debate about whether "not knowing" constitutes a valid third option in a dichotomy of belief versus disbelief in God. I argue that agnosticism, or withholding belief until evidence is presented, is a reasonable stance.
The debate intensifies when my interlocutor asserts that atheism is inherently flawed because it denies God's existence, which they claim leaves me with no viable option but to accept theism. I push back on this point, making clear that disbelief in a god does not require me to prove that a god absolutely does not exist but rather reflects the current state of evidence. When challenged on how the universe could exist without God, I introduce the idea of quantum fluctuations as a potential explanation for the universe's origin, emphasizing that no divine intervention is necessary for our understanding of physical laws. The argument continues back and forth, with my interlocutor insisting that denying God creates flawed options, while I maintain that there's simply no evidence to justify belief in a god.
Ultimately, the discussion devolves into a frustrating cycle where my opponent repeats the same points without providing substantive evidence for their claims. Despite the philosophical jargon employed, my position remains firm: belief in a god requires evidence, and in its absence, the rational stance is disbelief. At the end of the conversation, I expressed my frustration with the repetitive nature of the debate and chose to disengage, preferring to spend my time elsewhere.
Follow me on TikTok: ge.hopp.to/GodlessEngineerTikTok
Daily Bible Podcast: ge.hopp.to/DailyBiblePodcast
#atheism #christianity #atheist
Subscribe to this channel: ge.hopp.to/SubToGe
Join the Skeptic Mafia: ge.hopp.to/JoinSkepticMafia
Available Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 15% off Ridge Wallets: godlessengineering.com/ridgedeal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download CHRESTUS: ge.hopp.to/CHRESTUS
Get your "Citation Fucking Needed" Shirt: ge.hopp.to/citationfuckingneeded
"got evidence?" shirt: ge.hopp.to/GotEvidenceShirt
"btw, evolution is a fact" shirt: ge.hopp.to/BTWEvolutionIsAFact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discord Server: ge.hopp.to/JoinGEDiscord
In this conversation, I engage with an interlocutor who attempts to argue for the existence of a god based on logical necessity, while I challenge their assertions by focusing on the lack of evidence for such a being. The discussion starts with the claim that atheism is a flawed position and quickly moves into a debate over the law of the excluded middle. My stance is clear: I identify as an agnostic atheist, which means I don't believe in a god but am open to evidence if it ever surfaces. The conversation shifts into a debate about whether "not knowing" constitutes a valid third option in a dichotomy of belief versus disbelief in God. I argue that agnosticism, or withholding belief until evidence is presented, is a reasonable stance.
The debate intensifies when my interlocutor asserts that atheism is inherently flawed because it denies God's existence, which they claim leaves me with no viable option but to accept theism. I push back on this point, making clear that disbelief in a god does not require me to prove that a god absolutely does not exist but rather reflects the current state of evidence. When challenged on how the universe could exist without God, I introduce the idea of quantum fluctuations as a potential explanation for the universe's origin, emphasizing that no divine intervention is necessary for our understanding of physical laws. The argument continues back and forth, with my interlocutor insisting that denying God creates flawed options, while I maintain that there's simply no evidence to justify belief in a god.
Ultimately, the discussion devolves into a frustrating cycle where my opponent repeats the same points without providing substantive evidence for their claims. Despite the philosophical jargon employed, my position remains firm: belief in a god requires evidence, and in its absence, the rational stance is disbelief. At the end of the conversation, I expressed my frustration with the repetitive nature of the debate and chose to disengage, preferring to spend my time elsewhere.
Follow me on TikTok: ge.hopp.to/GodlessEngineerTikTok
Daily Bible Podcast: ge.hopp.to/DailyBiblePodcast
#atheism #christianity #atheist
Subscribe to this channel: ge.hopp.to/SubToGe
Join the Skeptic Mafia: ge.hopp.to/JoinSkepticMafia
Available Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 15% off Ridge Wallets: godlessengineering.com/ridgedeal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download CHRESTUS: ge.hopp.to/CHRESTUS
Get your "Citation Fucking Needed" Shirt: ge.hopp.to/citationfuckingneeded
"got evidence?" shirt: ge.hopp.to/GotEvidenceShirt
"btw, evolution is a fact" shirt: ge.hopp.to/BTWEvolutionIsAFact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discord Server: ge.hopp.to/JoinGEDiscord
