It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

Salutations omar2345! Nice to see you have accepted this debate. I have one question regarding your position: "I will be taking the side of the atheist. I personally take the stance that I do not know but I can make an argument why there are no good reasons to be a theist. " If I understand you right, You don"t personally believe in Atheism, But will you be able to defend and give arguments for its side this debate? It is important that this debate is not Agnosticism vs Theism. Forgive me for not having the definition of reason, As the topic was only an analogy to get us thinking, That being said it is Theism vs Atheism. Now to the debate: I started off this debate with two contentions: 1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist) 2. There is good reason for Theism To start off this second round I will defend the first contention: You brought out three premises to this debate (please fact check) So I suppose this is your position on side Atheist. Premise 1: Believing in God is illogical. God is given so many titles it would be difficult to explain how God exists or might even be impossible. Premise 2: All arguments for God are flawed. Premise 3: No evidence so it is a belief. (And I believe your conclusion was belief = not proven reasonable) To premise 1, You say that Believing in God is illogical because he has so many titles, But I ask why? A scientist will describe a new species of animal for example by giving it titles such as Carnivore, Nocturnal, Etc, But it doesn't follow that that animal is impossible or doesn"t exist. Similarly God has many titles/attributes that we find through logical reasoning, But it doesn"t follow that he doesn"t exist. In conclusion we find that titles are not a reason to discount something"s existence. To premise 2, "All arguments for God are flawed. " I hope that you don"t mean this literally, But if so please explain why. This is what a hasty generalization fallacy is, A stereotype without evidence to support it. In order for this to be true you would also need to provide a deductive argument to why all evidence for God is flawed. To premise 3, I agree with you that a belief without evidence is not logical, But that doesn"t make it untrue. At best this debate is 50-50 as you have given no evidence for the belief in Atheism as I asked in the round before. That being said, I did give you a fundamental deductive argument for God"s existence to which you responded and that leads me back to my second contention, Namely that there is good reason for Theism. Before I get into my responses, I would like to ask if you find anything wrong with the premises and the conclusion established? You seem to skip them and critique my analysis of the conclusion. In other words, It seems that your agree that there is a cause, But you just contend that it isn"t God. Please let me know if this is the case. Now on to your analysis, P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause P2: The universe began to exist C: Therefore, The universe has a cause "Cause is not sufficient grounds to explain the existence of God. " - > I would disagree in this case, Why is that so? What we mean by God, Is the fundamental creator of the universe. In addition this "cause" has certain attributes that makes him different than other causes (As I explained in round 1) and is what we call God. Please take a look at them and then respond in order to back up this claim. "Afterwards you did ask the question Where did the universe come from? This states that even you do not know what caused the universe which leads me to believe you went straight to God without explaining how it could be God. " -> Yes I did ask that question, The purpose was to illustrate the significance of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and set up my answer (which I explained in detail) that it is God. Please take a look at my explanation of God"s attributes before you rush to a "god of the gaps" and ask yourself what is wrong with those. To truth! -logicae