Athiest's Are Illogical

The Kalām Cosmological Argument: “This was the classical argument against the Kalam cosmological argument. The rebuttal for it, is that there cannot be an infinite amount of causes, because nothing we know of today is infinite. (As I explained earlier, not even the universe)” You’re basically committing an appeal to ignorance here. Yes, we currently know of nothing that is infinite. That, however, is not proof that the first cause was an infinite deity. There may very well be something “real” out there that does exist and is infinite but we simply don’t know of it yet. At some point, one does have to assume that something infinite was the first cause. I have provided two examples of conceivable infinites that don’t require the assumption of an unnecessary entity and are therefore, by Occam’s razor, more logically plausible than believing that a deity was the infinite first cause. You simply don’t need the assumption of the additional entity. Pascal's Wager Allow me to present to you Zbot’s Wager: One must choose between believing in Santa Claus or not. There is no third option. If you believe, he will give you gifts every year on Christmas. If not, you’ll only get a lump of coal. By your reasoning, the wager itself is reason enough to believe in Santa Claus. Sounds ridiculous, right? Obviously an appeal to emotion and illogical. Well, that’s how Pascal’s Wager sounds to someone who has not illogically presupposed God’s existence. By the atheist’s reasoning, the only justification for believing something to be true is a logical likelihood that that belief is true, not the consequences of holding that belief. The consequences do not affect the truth value of the belief. Leibniz's Argument Both arguments go back to the beginning of all things and seek to explain that the first cause/purpose inherently exists outside the normal order of things as we know them. In either argument, one must assume that the origin of all things exists in and of itself without cause and without a purpose. Both Kalam and Leibniz assume the existence of an entity to fulfill this role. I contend that the universe itself could be infinite and exists without cause or purpose OR that the chain of cause and effect could be infinite and exists without cause or purpose. In either case, I account for the existence of all things without the unnecessary assumption of another entity, which violates Occam’s razor. Jesus’ Nature “Actually, Christians do not believe that Jesus was both man and God.” This is yet another flatly incorrect statement.[1][2][3][4][5] I could go on with the sources but it’s getting a bit ridiculous. Yes, Christians do believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. Therefore, as my syllogism shows, they believe in the logical contradiction that he was both mortal and immortal. That is one example of how Christians are illogical. Biblical Inspiration The only source for specific information about the nature of God is the Bible itself. At best, one can attempt to make philosophical arguments for Theism, but to believe in the specific nature of God as Christians do, they must believe in the Bible. For example, my opponent cannot “argue with facts” that God is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. If he can, I invite him to do so. No, Christians believe what they believe about the existence and nature of their God because they believe the Bible is true. Why do they believe the Bible is true? Because they believe in the existence and nature of their God as described by the Bible. And around and around we go. The fact that they think this way is another example of how Christians are illogical. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.gotquestions.org... [3] http://www.newadvent.org... [4] http://carm.org... [5] http://www.theopedia.com...