It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

Round 3! Joyful that we have made it farther than most structured debates on this website. May we continue! I want to point out a few things, First thanks for taking the duty of proving atheism true, I did indeed point that out as a criteria for the con side in round one: "In this debate we are debating Theism vs Atheism and so there must be reasons to support both sides, Meaning that there must be a statement of fact by both sides, Not just a statement of unbelief as agnosticism. " Glad that this is cleared up. Next I am happy that we agree to your premise structure. "Assuming that reason in my eyes requires evidence which belief in a religion does not offer. If that is not what you meant can you clarify it in the comments? So that I understand what you are saying. " My summary of your conclusion was basically Belief in God = not proven reasonable. Sorry for the shortened version. That being said, I want to examine some resolutional analysis to clear any future questions: 1st, I think we agree now that it is the debate Pro for God"s existence and Con Against God"s existence. 2nd the Weighing mechanism will be the evidence for your side (including refutation of opponent"s arguments) 3rd and lastly what evidence and arguments is strongest will determine the winner. So let"s jump right in: Starting once again with my first contention, (there are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)) I will examine your responses to my look at your premises: Premise 1 Before I get into responses, I will agree that it is amazing and unimaginable how much power God has (and so I feel for you when you express doubt in His power). There are many things which fascinate me, My favorite extremity being is that of the Black Hole. "If parallel universes do exists then God knows what will happen in every different universe past, Present and future. We as humans cannot fathom knowing that much inform. That is why God is illogical. " First, I would agree if God was human, Or physical for that matter, Than He could not possible do these things, But God is not human or physical material (and yes he is not a computer chip for that matter), But God is being itself, Who by definition exists outside of space and time and created all matter. It is not illogical for a Being of maximally great power to be able to do these things (you just have to prove he doesn"t exist). Second, I would say doubt doesn"t make something untrue, For example: I could doubt that God does not exist, But unless I provide sound reasoning for this, I can"t simply say that my doubt makes this statement untrue. "It is illogical for us to believe this on just belief. I would say an outstanding claim would require outstanding evidence. " I agree that just one belief this is crazy, But bringing you back to the deductive arguments for God, This is not founded on plain belief. Please go back to my analysis of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for example. At first glance the second sentence here seems reasonable, But you have to ask: a. Why do we need outstanding evidence? To start, We find crazy cosmic truths all over the universe using simple logic. Black holes for example are measured by the things they suck in, Nothing special. But these cosmic vacuum monsters are said suck in everything, Nothing can escape, Even light. We can"t see them but we know they are there, The same goes for God. b. What "crazy" evidence are you looking for? The universe was said to come into being from nothing! But nothing comes out of nothing, So I think the most outstanding piece of evidence is that fact that the Universe popped into being out of nothing, As if by a miracle and therefore God. (pun intended ;) "In conclusion we find that titles are not a reason to discount something"s existence. " If I did not make it clear above. We cannot fathom such a thing that can hold such information and the last sentence above would be my blanket statement. " I wish we could fully understand Black Holes too, But this still doesn"t disprove their existence, Nor God"s. Premise 2 "I did not do it on purpose. I wanted you to give me an argument that was not flawed to prove me wrong. Hopefully you would give one in the next. Yes it can be perceived as a absolute statement but it was also a blanket statement. The fault is mine. I should have been more clear. " 1. It"s all good. Glad that we can get that out of the way though. 2. I gave one in the first round, (going to abbreviate it now to save room) the KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument). You have 3. Still yet to disprove this nor my conclusions of it. "I can do that to the arguments you make. I want you to pick the relevant arguments so that I am not mis-characterizing your stance and if I did all arguments I would require more then 8, 000 words. " 1. Are you saying that you cannot fit an argument here? If not can you at least give an outline to a deductive argument for Atheism? Premise 3 " Fair point. I simply stated the belief in itself does not make it true. Using science, Logic or reasoning would make it true. If it was believed to be true it is still a belief. Yes reasoning, Logic or science can say it is true but the belief did not make it true. If you mean subjective truth then everything is true to someone so I don't know where either of us are supposed to go with that. " I didn't mean to say subjective, I simply stated that premise 3 doesn"t prove anything. The funny thing is that Truth by definition is an objective fact, And so it is contradictory to say "subjective truth". " I have read it again and there was no mention of burden of proof or evidence or proof that you stated in your Round 1. " I placed the quote up above in this post. "A belief does not require evidence but I will give some anyway. " A rational one does, One that proves to be true. "The reason why Atheism is a better belief to have then Theism is because all God's that are mentioned today either are forgotten or have flaws. More specifically the Christian one. " Please do not do a whole to part fallacy, We are only discussing the God of Theism (and yes the Christian God) I agree that there are irrational gods like the gods of Greek mythology, But those were only plain unsubstantiated stories, Even ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle noted this and still deductively found the Theistic God. In other words, Theism"s claim for God is unlike all other claims for gods. Now to your new arguments: "God cannot be all knowing while also giving free will. If you mean free will in the confines of what God allows that is not free will. Free will if God did say it would be the freedom to go against God wishes. Wishes would be to me God's plans. " 1. Free will is simple, It is the ability to reject or accept God"s will. 2. Why? Are you saying that God cannot have a good reason for granting us free will? There are many good things that come from free will: Independence, Love, Etc. It is what it means to be human. 3. This simply does not disprove God"s existence. "The plans would be visions or whatever God has that determines what happens. Can a human go against what God predicted? Yes then we have free will but God is not all-knowing. No we do not have free will but God is all-knowing. " I agree, To the second sentence, But to the rest: 1. Why can"t I have free will and God be all knowing? Please set a rational for this. 2. God can let people have free will even though they can reject him. Without free will we would be as useless as robots, As instead of being able to choose God out of love, We would be forced. Indeed freewill is a good that God thankfully decided to give us. "We cannot know something we do not know. " 1. Agreed "Circular reasoning but it does make sense. " 1. Agreed 2. What does not make sense about God? Again, When you prove something deductively, That means the rational is absolute, It is proven factual. Please instead talk about how my deductive reasoning is false. It is important that you attack the logic of God and not pretend that there is no evidence for God. "An Atheist is a person who found flaws in religions that they know of and rejected the religion due to those flaws. " Are you familiar with Agnosticism? This modern definition of Atheism seems to confuse people, As classical Atheism is simply the opposite of Theism (hence the A - Theism), Meaning instead of believing in God, Atheism rejects God. Now I understand that you do not believe that God is not real, But you are not yet convinced of either Theism or Atheism. This is Agnosticism. So then it is important that you find real reasons for Atheism (that God cannot exist) rather than just writing off Theism. Both sides of a debate must prove their side true. "Someone can be born atheist but it is unlikely that will go through life without knowing a religion. " If that is really Atheism, Than I find it unintelligible, As it asserts a two year old to have the same belief. Please tell me you have found reason beyond this. But I think rather that you cannot hold a world view when you are born, You simply do not start outs knowing anything and so Atheism (rejection of God) could not be an innate quality of everyone. Now to your response to the KCA: Premise 1: "As far as we know all physical things began with some sort of cause. As something cannot come from nothing. " 1. Good, Glad we agree. So then I find no objection to premise one "As far as we know was added to make sure we both have the idea that it is from our perception not an outside reality perspective where we can see everything looking in. " 1. Then we are all insane, But thankfully to the contrary I think that we all know what the reality of things are, As philosophy and science is based on constant principles that allow us to deductively discover the objective truths of our reality. And so premise 1 still stands Ran out of room, So I will be extending debate into the comments: