RESOLVED: It is more logical to believe that no 'God' exists II

"I'M TIRED OF STARTING THIS SAME TOPIC AND THEN YET ANOTHER ARSEHOLE FORFEITS."One can't contrive irony this thick.Before you continue reading, viewers, please refer to the comments section in order to read my opponent's second round. I didn't accept this debate so I could win off of forfeits so I allowed him to post his argument as a comment. It's okay, I'll wait.Finished? Okay, welcome back.My Opponent's Arguments' Main FlawMy opponent has happily taken the burden of proof in this debate in proving that it is more logical to belief no God exists than believing that one does. As an atheist, I wholeheartedly disagree with the proposition. It is equally as illogical to believe no God exists than to believe one does.Now, before I get into my opponent's arguments, allow me to formally introduce you to the most abused logical fallacy in the history of rational discourse: ad ignorantiam (literally "argument from ignorance" or "appeal to ignorance").The argument from ignorance fallacy comes in two forms:X has never been proven to be false; therefore, X is true.X has never been proven to be true; therefore, X is false. [1]My opponent is relentlessly demonstrating the second form in his arguments. (Note: "X", in this case, is the proposition "God exists".)RebuttalsNow to look at my opponent's three main arguments:1. PrayerMy opponent asserts that all "answered" prayers are really just coincidences. Sure, this might be the case. There is no reason to attribute so-called miracles to a deity. But then, there is also no reason to discern the cause for said miracles are necessarily without divine intervention.2. ScriptureMy opponent asserts that all holy scriptures of every religion are nothing more than man-made. My opponent extends the challenge for me "to show any piece of scripture which contains knowledge that would be impossible for the writers to have known". With respect, I decline my opponent's challenge. I concede that every religious text in history has been nothing more than the products of human minds.Does this necessarily mean that no God at all exists? Of course not. While infamous meme "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" may be alluring in its adorable simplicity, it's widely understood in philosophical circles to be untrue. In reality, an absence of evidence is just that: an absence of evidence to prove the validity or invalidity of a claim (thus the ad ignorantiam).3. ExistenceMy opponent asserts that the origins of the universe and of life had absolutely no supernatural influence to them purely on the basis that many other phenomena we know of have a natural explanation. This beautifully illustrates an error in inductive reasoning: assuming everything in a particular category must necessarily have property X because most or all the ones we know of so far do.The following is a simple example of the same kind of inductive reasoning error: every woman I've ever met has been married; therefore, every woman in the entire world is married.It's true that we have some very appealing scientific models for the origins of the universe and abiogenesis, but none of them can entirely rule out the possibility of divine intervention, especially not on the basis that other phenomena we know of are natural. Does this mean divine intervention, in fact, played a role in the origins of the universe and of life? No, there is no reason to believe a deity created the universe. But, then, there is also no reason to believe one didn't.Pro's strange proclamationMy opponent states this pretty early on in his round: "I would also like to add that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God, since by all definitions he exists outside the laws of nature. It is NOT my burden of proof to prove that God doesn't exist, only to show it is more logical to believe that no God exists."Notice how he says he's not trying to prove God doesn't exist (as that's admittedly impossible), just that it's logical to believe God doesn't exist. Tell me, Pro: without any evidence to support the non-existence of God, how is it logical to assume God does not exist any more than it is logical to assume God does without evidence?ConclusionIs it logical to believe X is true or false with no evidence that X is true or false? Not at all. I have explained why both believing a God exists and believing a God doesn't exist are equally desirous of forming assumptions where assumptions should not justifiably be made.Over to you, tvellalott.Source[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...