Atheism is a lie

As i have already stated, your first premises "men in minnesota wear beards." Is not a necessarily true statement. Its a weak premise that One does not have to accept as absolutely true. The logic I presented began with necessarily true premises." "No one can actually know if God exists or not." This is an absolutely true premise. That leads to a deductive conclusion that is also becomes absolutely true, given the premises are true. Between the atheist and the believer, which do you see always acting like the other is "lacking knowledge?" And which do you ssee say the other is "lacking faith." There is a critical difference between why people believe and say they know God exists, and why people disbelieve and say they dont know if God exists. The critical difference is that we all know by logic and axiomatically, that if God exists.."no one can really KNOW if God exists." So the believer though he says he "knows" also logically understands he must "believe" and that his knowledge cannot be proven. The disbeliever also knows axiomatically, no one can really know if God exists or not. Yet has taken a leap of faith in stating "i do not believe God exists." Either position atheist or believer requires Faith to some degree, in the absence of absolute knowledge of God's existence. In short, you have faith God doesnt exist therefore live your life as if he did not. But an atheist doesnt like the sound of that, so they enjoy truning the burden of proof to one side of the argument. The theists are somehow responsible for convincing atheists into their religion. When thought about for more than a second, one sees how absurd this idea is. The theists make claims sure. But their claims , true or false, should not and does not have any bearing on whether or not God exists. The ability of humans to accurately describe Or define God is entirely irrelevant to God's existence. God could exist, and the whole world can be wrong about who or what God is. The claim about God existing or not does not come from a theist. The claim is an inherent question that begs the truth, due to your very existence. Hence, you asked "where did i come from?" And the answer was "God." It is an internal and psychological question for the self. God IS "the first cause." And this is not a new definition proposed. It is the most fundamental and basic definition of God. Just because YOU have other imaginary notions about what God is, does not make God exist , not exist or change his existence. And if no one has ever known God or seen Him, how do you expect ANY one to define his properties for you to test? As you mention yourself, first you need to imagine a God ir deity to test and validate, given the available evidence. The key word here is that YOU are IMAGINING what God is, THEN based on your imagination you test if he exists or not. You did not test or valudate thr "first cause" (you dont even know what the first cause is!!!!). All you have done was confirm that the God u imagined is unlikely to exist. And just becsuse someone says "God is our Savior." Or "God is eternal and merciful." That doesnt give u much of a definition to KNOW exactly what kind of evidnce to look for when testing if the REaL God exists or not. You still have no idea who or what God is, even with all biblical descriptions put together. So basically. As the famous Noam Chomsky put it..."what is it that you don't believe in?" The atheist argument is a strawman fallacy. A lie in itself. A circular reasoning based on a bad premise. That premise is that the atheist believes he KNOWS who or what God is, and can define God in his mind, so as to say God most likely doesnt exist. But is the God the atheist thinks doesnt exist, the actual God of the universe. Con's final paragraph only solidifies my point, my logic, and my win. Atheism is a lie. In practice, by logic, and in all honesty. She says "i dont need faith that I am loved, becsuse I have evidence to test." Con claims she doesnt need to believe she is loved because she KNoWs she is loved. Faith is unnecessary. Although many atheists will support this view, the idea is entirely irrational and lacking in semtantic value whatsoever. Her tests and evidnce would be things like "do they spend time with me? Do they put me first?" As her empirical tests for love? Impossible! This also shows her complete lack of understanding in scienctific concepts, practice as well as conditions for a scientifically significant test. These are not tests that allow us to know if she is loved by any meaningful measures. Maybe she is being used, but she doesnt know it because her mom always put her first and spends time with her. How does she know her mom is not just waiting for her to ripen so her mom can eat her for dinner when the time is right. How does she know she is not on the Truman Show and her mom isnt her real mom. The fake mom would show all superficial signs of love like "spending time, putting her first, etc.". Does this in ANY way , scientifically or logically PROVE she is loved? No. It does not. She believes it.