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! Don't worry about it. I haven't quit yet on this site and don't have any reason do quit for this debate. Premise 1First, I would agree if God was human, Or physical for that matterWhat I am getting through this is that. God is not human and non-physical. My argument was God being illogical. Why? We cannot apply reason to God which is why it is illogical. Can we find out God is all-knowing, All-powerful etc no. Theists based that upon belief. They do not actually know. So going by logic theists believing is illogical because God cannot be reasoned into existence if we were being honest instead say God did this and that without answering how and why. Logic:a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (Merriam Webster)by definition exists outside of space and time and created all matter. This is why I wanted you to define God. I will do it for you. The universe means he is apart of our universe. No mention of outside space so you assumed that instead going by what the definition. God: : the Being perfect in power, Wisdom, And goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe (Merriam Webster)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. God is illogical. My point still stands. We cannot provide solid reasoning for God's existence. We have no evidence only belief. Please go back to my analysis of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for example. I thought I made it clear the argument is flawed therefore you are analysing a flawed argument. I guess I will rebut the argument again without your analysation because first the argument has to be true before your analysation could be. Kalam Cosmological Argument1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause2. The Universe began to exist3. Therefore, The universe has a causeTheist'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. If you have problems stick quote what I said and tell me what I did wrong. You did say: Pro for God"s existence so you agree God does exist. Meaning if this argument was true God will also require a cause. If God does not the argument is wrong. Why do we need outstanding evidence? It was more of a blanket statement, But I will tell you why we need it for God. God is the most powerful going by the definition I used above. 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. How is important in telling us where should we point to God doing something and why would make sure all religions that do not the same as God itself are wrong. Note this would happen if we can actually test God. As far as I know we cannot. You made the argument about black holes. 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. Black hole is simply something that devours matter. Yes that really boils it down but lets take God. Perfect power, Wisdom, Goodness and worshiped by all. No one worships the same God and everything makes it require outstanding evidence because of pedestal God is on. Without outstanding evidence how do you prove God's existence? 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 ;)Not evidence by the way. You saying nothing comes out of nothing goes against God. What caused God? Is God the start? If so that goes against your statement nothing comes out of nothing. The logic you are using here is I don't know what created the universe so I will use the thing that is close to me God. That is not how logic works. We do not have enough information about the beginning of universe to make an informed decision so everything is theories. Yes we can find holes in theories like God. God cannot exist because that goes your arguments that go in lines of cause and effect. What caused God? I wish we could fully understand Black Holes too, But this still doesn"t disprove their existence, Nor God"s. The sentence above stated we require full understanding of black holes to know it does exist but we don't. 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. We only require evidence to the claim of God. We can ask God why but that is not required for God's existence. I still have not seen evidence for God and if you ask for evidence from me. I would say the more rational position would be to disbelieve then to believe it. Premise 2You have 3. Still yet to disprove this nor my conclusions of it. Did not have room for it. 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? Had no space so I will add it here. 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. Mentioning only Christianity since it is the most popular one. Hebrew cannot be fully translated nor does it have numbers. Love and God are the same word in Hebrew which is a problem when reading the Bible. Numbers did not exist so they are using words like first, Second, Third to make numbers. That is wrong and when translating a word Hebrew has masculine and feminine versions of the same word. Meaning when translating you have to find something similar in both to make the Hebrew word then it can be translated. So Hebrew is required to be translated twice and even that is wrong. With the link below I see that by finding something similar for it to be translated to 2 the word they have come up with is not in the masculine nor the feminine versions of the word. Premise 3I simply stated that premise 3 doesn"t prove anything. 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. Since this is a debate I have stated arguments and my premise is correct since there is no evidence for the existence of God. We are only discussing the God of Theism (and yes the Christian God)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. Theism"s claim for God is unlike all other claims for gods. I guessing your are changing the definition. The definition does not state what is true theism. If I am wrong with my assumption then the God of theism is different in every religion. Even the Abrahamic ones, They do not agree what God does so how are there God's the same? 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. 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. Free will: voluntary choice or decision orfreedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. (Merriam Webster)1st one yes but that definition is too simple. The second definition (after the or) states without divine intervention. Where humans free to not be forced into writing Bible? Are humans free to go against what God already knows what will happen? No. If you want me show you only you also agree. A quote from you: But nothing comes out of nothing You did make a similar point in Round 1 but I will stick to this. By you agreeing to this free will does not exist. We are all affected by prior causes even though you do not think you are. We cannot make choices not determined by our prior causes. These causes can be going to school, Going to church, Being raised by a select family. All this has made you the person today. You did not choose to learn what you did when you did. You did not get the choice to be born. You did not get the choice for going to church. All that has made logicae that is debating me now. Yes you can choose simply to not go church, Not go church, Not go school but that is determined by prior causes. Maybe you saw me right this and said I want to prove him wrong. I can say me speaking about free will was the prior cause of changing your mind. Why can"t I have free will and God be all knowing? If God knows what we are going to do before we do it then how do we have a choice? 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. Without free will we would be as useless as robots Does not mean my argument is wrong. Indeed freewill is a good that God thankfully decided to give us. Assuming it to be true not proving it to be the case. Source:https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Hebrew_numerals