Belief in God is irrational

Atheism to me is not just ignorantly asserting that no God exists; it is a belief grounded upon the fact that there is no logical evidence put forth yet suggesting that a God or the Judeo-Christian God exists. For me, since you asked, my path to enlightenment of non-belief came around the age of 12. It wasn't so much philosophical in nature as it is now, but from seeing the negative affects such beliefs had on people (both past as present---subjective aspect which we agreed we wouldn't touch upon) in addition to other dilemmas I'll bring forth shortly. But more importantly is my lack of need in acknowledging, praying to, thanking, and giving myself to a personal God. I guess you can say I am a pragmatic atheist. Until a time comes wherein there is sufficient, logical evidence for a belief in the Christian God, I will continue to live my life as if no God exists (but not necessarily shut off to the possibilty--such a position a deist or Spinoza's God could take). To some this is a depressing assertion. However, I contend it's actually quite beautiful. I have complete control over my life. I am not subservient to a patriarchal, authoritarian, capricious, jealous, homicidal, hypocritical, vain, callous being (the God portrayed in the Bible anyway). I have no fear of hell. No desire to go to your heaven. Ultimate free will, in this day and age, should be seen as far more rewarding than a life of docile obedience to a sovereign ubiquitous being watching our every move. My ultimate authority I suppose would be the scientific process. Many centuries ago, a belief in a God was arguably rational. God was our first explanation for life--our first attempt at science and philosophy. At the time we wanted to explain the unknown--the mysteries of this planet we live on. What is causing these earthquakes that is killing us by the thousands? Disease? How did we come to being? What is the bright thing in the sky providing us with heat? What causes the tides? The list goes on and on. At that time, human ignorance was at its peak. The easiest explanation: God did it. He has always been the "God of the gaps", but now unfortuantely, thanks to the scientific process and secularism, we have a working knowledge of the universe with very few questions left unanswered for theists to grab onto and claim as their own.You quoted: "My final authority or ultimate standard is the Bible"Here lies the greatest dilemma in this entire argument/debate. The Bible is not a credible source or explanation for the existence of your God. We do not prove anything to be true via conjecture or through axiomatic truths. Do you reject the existence of Allah? What about the Quran? Isn't that "proof" for their God's existence?Furthermore, we are all atheists in some form or another. You reject the existence of the thousands upon thousands of other Gods before yours. I beg the simple question: Why? On what grounds is your God real, and theirs false? [Short list of Gods prior to the Christian God: http://www.lowchensaustralia.com...]According to your opening argument, your ultimate authority for believing in the Christian God is the Bible. I ask: was the Bible inspired by God or written by God? (His message sent via the divine authors, to the authors, or did the authors deduct what they thought God would say or act?) I've heard very little of these 40 authors and their backgrounds/credibility. do you believe in all biblical writings as truthful, or like many theists, do you cherry-pick the passages that give credence to your beliefs and reject the others that go against your beliefs?-- or make the cop-out argument: "that story is taken out of context" This will be very important for other components of this debate. I contend that the Bible is not written or inspired by a real God (not the God created in ones mind), because there is no reasonable evidence to suggest so. Until you can prove that the Bible is a credible document, my original contention that belief in God is irrational will remain true. For believing in someone that does not exist, or in something we do not know exists given our knowledge today, is not logical or reasonable as per our definitions.The BOP for this is on you: I do not have to prove why believing in the scientific process is rational. However, you do have to prove why the Bible is a valid source for proving the existence of God. Unfortunately, self-attestment for the existence of God as predicated upon by the Bible is irrational. How do you know God exists? Because of the Bible How do you the Bible is valid? Because it's inspired by and is the word of God Why is this irrational? Because circular reasoning is irrational. Christians and yourself believe that God exists. The Christian view is grounded upon the bible. The Bible's validity is based upon circular reasoning The Bible is the primary justification for the existence of God, which is based upon circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is irrational Conclusion:Believing in the Christian God is therefore irrational.You brought up the 3 main laws of logic but failed to present a case for their applicability: if you could elaborate on these that'd be great.1.Law of Identity. Everything is what it is. A is A or A is Identical with A. God exists because...God exists? 2. Law of Non-Contradiction. A cannot be A and not A at the same time. Can God be omnibenevolent and command murder of women and children at the same time? Can God be omniscient but allow for human free-will at the same time? Can God create a boulder so heavy that even he could not life? 3. Law of Excluded Middle. A is either A or not A God either exists or he doesn't? He's either omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent or he is not? Given everything we know about God is based on the Bible, these laws of logic only further prove that there isn't any rationality for a belief in God, yet. Laws of logic:#1. The Bible does not sufficiently prove God exists. #2. The Bible is chalk-full of contradictions pertaining to God's nature#3. Given these contradictions, he is not omniscient, omnibenevolent nor omnipotent. I'll close with a quote from Epicurious that wraps this up nicely:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? You said: To present a proposition as true one cannot resort to pure subjectivism or feelings. I assert that the laws of logic exist only because God exists, that they are a reflection of His nature. This is a thought-provoking assertion for sure. Such that can objective moral standards exists without the existence of God? A proposition I don't think we can tackle in this debate. However, I beg the question: how do you know it's the Christian God that is the ultimate creator? The real, true God? How are you certain it is not one of the many other proposed Gods throughout our history? As a Christian I believe that God created the universe by fiat out of nothing. So on one hand you argue that human life and everything our universe contains cannot be created from nothing or by mere chance (evolution, big bang), but now you assert that the universe was created by God out of nothing? As the designer of ultimate power, intelligence, and love/compassion would indeed require a designer as well resulting in an ad-infinitum dilemma. I hope all readers can see the many dilemmas with a belief in the Christian God--as I have presented just a few here. Sources:Epicurious quote: http://thinkexist.com...Laws of logic: http://www.britannica.com...