This is a question specifically intended for atheists. Answer yes or no when possible; if you cannot, state why clearly.

First, define your position. Are you denying God's existence or just arguing as if He doesn't exist? If you choose not to assert a true claim, elucidate the significance of your worldview in a truth debate.

Now, elucidate the initial causes. In your worldview, what is the source of matter, energy, space, time, and the laws that govern them? If you answer “no cause,” explain why brute facts are acceptable for atheism but not for theism. If you answer “infinite regress,” explain why an endless chain of causes is rational while a necessary being is not.

Address information. DNA contains complex, functional information. Laws of physics are mathematically precise. Explain how unguided processes generate information rather than merely rearranging existing matter. If chance and necessity are your answer, explain why intelligence is excluded by rule rather than evidence.

Justify the reason. Your brain is the product of blind physical processes selected for survival, not truth. Explain why your reasoning should be trusted. If your thoughts are chemistry in motion, explain why logical inference is more than a survival illusion.

Ground morality. Are moral claims objective or subjective? If objective, identify their source in a godless universe. If subjective, explain why statements like “genocide is evil” are more than personal preference. If morality is social consensus, explain why past societies were wrong rather than merely different.

Explain logic and mathematics. Laws of logic are universal, immaterial, and unchanging. Numbers are abstract and non-physical. Identify where these come from in a material-only universe. If they “just exist,” explain why that answer is not dismissed as special pleading.

Now compare standards. You reject God because He is not observable in a laboratory. Do you apply that exact requirement to moral truths, logical laws, or consciousness itself? If not, explain why theism alone is held to a stricter rule.

State falsifiability. What evidence would prove atheism false? If you say “nothing,” explain why atheism should be considered rational rather than immune to challenge. If you say, “God reveals Himself,” explain how you would recognize that without already assuming atheism.

Finally, explain the explanatory scope. Why does your worldview explain existence, reason, morality, and meaning better than theism, rather than merely denying the questions? Answer directly.

There should be no reliance on consensus. Avoid making any references to authority figures. No deflection to personal experience. Please address the questions as stated.

Thanks for liking, sharing, and following.