It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

Here is the rest of my round 3 responses: Sorry I am so late, It deleted my post and I had to restart once I realized the glitch Premise 2: "I agree if this is the only reality. If there alternative realities do not exist then this would be right. I think infinite is tagged on to thing because we have not found an answer to it. When we do then that would be removed. " -1. You really have not responded to my argument of infinites, Simply if infinites don"t exist, Then we cannot have an infinite of anything, Even universes. Please show me how infinites exist in reality. 2. Even if we had all of these universes(which you haven't proven as of yet), They would still need a cause, As you agreed that everything has a cause and this cannot go on to infinity. An example to illustrate this would be a train. You can say that the train cars of a train only go on for so long until we reach the source of the motion, The engine. This does not work with an infinite series of train cars, As the train cars do not explain why they are moving, But instead there must be an end, The engine, To explain the motion. The universe (or universes) is the train cars and God is the engine. And so premise 2 still stands "A beginning can happen without a being with perfect power, Wisdom, Goodness. " The beginning of something within the physical constraints sure, But we are talking about the creations of everything, Space, Time, Matter, So you cannot just simply ignore the power required to do this. The same thing goes for goodness and wisdom as they are part of creation. "This can be seen with evolution. You might equate to God since I don't believe God exists I simply state that evolution was not God so it does not require God to be the creator. " Actually I will turn this argument, Because evolution does not explain itself, Nor the extremely improbable factors by which it claims to have happened. Ask yourself, Could something so improbable happen by chance? But even if you agree that all of this happened by chance, This still ignores the question how it all got here. Please look back to the KCA. "I then would stay who created God? " This is an absurd argument. To deduce a cause, You don"t need to find its cause. If that were true, Then we would never be able to detect the cause of anything, Because as we found one cause, We would need to find its cause, Etc to infinity and nothing would be true. But as I pointed out earlier there must be a cause to everything, A engine if you will to everything. "I will say the Big Bang can be the start. " Earlier we agreed that everything has a cause, So then you now say that nothing caused everything (the big bang). This contradicts and you must acknowledge a cause to the Big Bang. An engine must exist. "If not satisfied what would you find difficult to believe about the Big Bang? " That nothing caused something, Simple. "Can the cause be not the creator? Yes so I can believe that the Big Bang started. That falls in line with a cause just like God. " Why? Again you give no reason for this statement, As I proved this false in the first round. The Big Bang does not fall in line with God, As the Big Bang cannot justify itself, It needs a cause. Why can't the laws be the cause? Because laws cannot explain themselves, They need to be created and they cannot create, Only dictate. "From our limited time being intelligent creatures with our limited perception can you think we might possibly not have enough information to say how the universe was created? " I find this an ad hominem in disguise, As it does not address my point. The rest of the paragraph is like it. "Physical things can create physical things (babies)" Yes, In the sense that the material is reformed, But physical things cannot actually create new matter. Hence I can"t make my toaster pop out a baby that didn"t consist of available matter. (weird analogy, But you get the point XD) "God does not need to be good to be God. " What is good? It would depend on what you mean by good. (Keep in mind good is just a shortened version of God) Goodness is just a statement of perfect being, Creation as it was intended to be, God wills things to be a certain way and evil is just a rejection of that. God doesn"t contradict his own will and so God cannot be evil. Now to your round rebuttal: "Don't worry about it. I haven't quit yet on this site and don't have any reason do quit for this debate. " 1. Happy you have that commitment! "We cannot apply reason to God which is why it is illogical. Can we find out God is all-knowing, All-powerful etc no. " 1. Why? Circular reasoning. 2. Agreed do definition of logic, Now prove me wrong "The universe means he is apart of our universe. No mention of outside space so you assumed that instead going by what the definition. " 1. No it does not, You cannot be your creation (example: A builder cannot build himself) 2. By definition you put forth, God is the creator of the Universe, Meaning he existed before it. I think it is pretty obvious what the Theistic God is. But regardless I spelled it out in the first round and here is it in basic form: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (Oxford Dictionary) Simply God is the creator of the universe. "God is illogical. My point still stands. We cannot provide solid reasoning for God's existence. We have no evidence only belief. " 1. Circular reasoning, Cross apply above response. "Theist's stretch cause to be God. Another way this falls flat is God goes against the first premise. If God existed without a cause then Kalam Cosmological Argument is wrong. (I used this from an earlier forum post that was mine) This should be enough to debunk this argument. " 1. Be careful before you start accusing people of "god of the gaps" arguments, Please take a look at my conclusions of the KCA and then talk about that instead. 2. That again does not debunk the KCA, As the premises have yet to be disproved. "Meaning if this argument was true God will also require a cause. " 1. No as proved above there must be a first cause, An Engine if you must. 2. Cross apply my above argument above about needing to prove a cause to a cause to make it true, Simply a flawed argument. "If we have no evidence stating how God does it, Why then we are not answering the most important ones of the 5 W's" 1. This is an assertion about no evidence, Please refute the KCA and let"s talk about that. 2. Cross apply above response, There must be an engine. "We can apply logic to black holes to say it does exist. We cannot apply logic to God because God does not exist and from what you said I don't think you have made argument that I have not rebutted about your side that is pro God's existence. " 1. Assertion, Evidence needed. 2. Please reference my evidence for God. (KCA) "What caused God? Is God the start? " 1. Cross apply response above "If we can find something in space that is devouring matter we can equate that to black holes. On the other hand God does not also require full understanding to know God exists. " 1. Glad we agree here, This is a very reasonable stance that I unfortunately don"t see many Atheist take. "Atheism is the rejection of the God's people follow today. The reason why this is right is because religion have flaws in the book which they state is from God. " 1. Does not disprove God. 2. I agree that religion is an important debate in itself, But this debate is not about the Bible or Christianity or for Religion for that matter. I would love to debate this if only we had enough room! "I didn't need to require to prove the existence of God because I do not say God exists. The burden of proof is on your end and you have not fulfilled it. " 1. Assertion, Please show where I did not uphold my burden of proof. 2. Not a one sided debate. You have the burden of proof as well, Again as I have restated throughout this debate, You have to proof that God does not exist. We have yet to see this. "my premise is correct since there is no evidence for the existence of God. " 1. Circular reasoning, Please prove this. "You know you could have made it more clear that it was about the Christian God. Oh well. At least I did target it to Christianity. There is no God of theism. There are many different Gods Theist's believe in so your statement is wrong. " 1. What you are asserting is not what actually exists, As there are many religions that Believe in the one God that made the universe (Theism). Please show me how this disproves my above definition 2. Regardless I spelled out who God is in this debate when I examined His attributes in round one. "Theism: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world (Merriam Webster)" 1. Yes, Proves my point. Here there is one God, That created the universe: Theism (what am I missing? ). Now I agree that every Theistic religion has their own off shoots from this, But we are debating the bare bones God and whether he exists or not. If you want to get into religion, We can debate this another time. "We don't since God already knew the choice we are going to make. You might at that moment we had free will but I tailored an example to you above. " 1. If I knew someone was going to win the lottery by buying a ticket and then they bought the ticket, Were they then restricted and forced to bye the lottery ticket? No, This simply does not follow and so is it in God"s case. Also you are not a slave to your past, Not being able to choose the past does not mean that you can't make free decisions in the future. Please freely show me where I"m wrong. Thanks again! -Logicae