It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

I do owe some burden of proof but I did not see how logicae even completed his proof. An argument without a conclusion is not proof. It is not an argument which is what he did what KCA. This means logicae does not have proof for theism. If logicae did he would have shown proof for the belief in God. Reason is a different matter and I do also feel I gave the better argument and logicae my rebuttal to KCA. I want to also thank Pro for making and staying for the debate. Next time hopefully it is just about the KCA argument or something more specific so that we both do not have the room to rebut each others arguments. 1. There are no good reasons for atheism (that is God does not exist)2. There is good reason for TheismI don't see how I did not successfully rebut your reasons and burden of proof was not fulfilled by your part. And so, By that rule we must be proving for and Against God's existence. The following round Con stated that his belief resided in a more agnostic Atheism, Which I then asked if that would affect his side for God does not exist. It seems since then that Con has swayed from the original debate guidelines and gone for a one-sided approach, Demanding and rebutting evidence from Pro for Theism, But not providing evidence for Atheism or God not existing. I did also gave arguments. See my Round 1. P1: Whatever begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: Therefore, The universe has a causeA deductive argument is an absolute statement, Meaning if the premises are true, Then the conclusion is true. I believe that I gave enough contentions to disprove this argument. You said it here if the premises are not true the conclusion cannot be true. I stuck with the arguments and found many flaws. I did this in Round 1, 2 and 3. Titles do not make something illogical, As the numerous titles of a black hole do not make it illogical. The titles make it difficult to explain. All-knowing, All powerful, Everywhere requires proof for every single attribute. My statement is still true. Titles can make something illogical. The title do have definitions and my reasoning for it being difficult to explain God is everywhere is enough grounds to say it is illogical since to this day there is no evidence for God. As agreed upon earlier, God is not a human and so he can do things beyond our abilities. If we cannot know what something superior can be how do we fathom it, Put in into words and make it proof? The arguments still stands because none of our 5 senses can prove the existence of such a creature. But that doesn"t make black holes illogical. The same is true with GodBlack holes devour matter. God is all-knowing, All-powerful and everywhere. Do you see the difference between the two? Another difference is one can be seen and cannot as far as I know. No proof for your side. I can simply counter assert that it is illogical to disbelieve in God and say it makes sense. My argument was still correct even if it was circular reasoning. What cannot know something what we do not know. You do not have to know everything to know something. Black holes for example are still largely unknown phenomena. We know that they exist and have the property of great gravitational forces, But we cannot see them or explain what really happens in them. The probability of us seeing a black hole is higher then seeing God. Review the Attributes of God. I showed in the past debate, This cause to the universe has certain attributes (spaceless, Timeless, All-powerful, All-knowing, Etc) that would only this cause God. This was largely unresponded to and I hope Con finally recognizes this. For me to agree to your conclusions I must first agree with your premise. The KCA I debunked in 3 rounds. The 3 round would be my best attempt. I will copy my argument from Round 3 here: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. Sure, But as I pointed out out in my earlier responses this cause has these attributesThe big bang can produce such a thing without requiring attributes or a purpose. I think you are making an intelligence design argument. If you are it is flawed since humans are flawed. The way Theists go around this is that God made us flawed even though God has the power to not make us flawed. That makes no sense and with the attributes God has it is illogical for God to create us flawed. My response here is simple, As Con agreed in round four, That evolution does not explain itself. I did not agree. Type in evolution and find it in Round 4 in logicae's response. He quoted me not conceding evolution. R: The Big bang does not explain itself. This is just like saying a painting caused itself or anything really, Caused itself. No physical thing can cause itself. Instead something most have created the big bang. God does not explain itself either. You said that anything cannot cause itself. If I am right in your statement God cannot cause Itself therefore God has a creator. This goes on infinitely if we go by your logic. Mine was not. As I pointed out earlier, Laws are literally created and cannot create. But a God can create itself if I don't follow your logic above about the Big Bang. We can prove amazing things without amazing evidence. Black holes for example. Black holes is a theory until proven to exist. As tools are updated we have more technology to prove that black holes do exist. From the source below it states that in July 12 2018 Fermi Traces Source of Cosmic Neutrino to Monster Black Hole so that would be proof of the black hole. Seems like God does not have the same evidence on Its side. https://science. Nasa. Gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes Not relevant to this debate, All religion is: Man"s response to God. We are just debating if God exists, Not what Religion is true. For a God to be true a religion must also be true. Since God if real would either ask something of us or has no impact. First option requires Religion. The other does not but that was not what logicae was stating for since he did give attributes similar to what Christians believe not what a no impact God would have. This ignores the necessity of a causeless creator. First Con did not respond to the impossibility of infinities and so the causes of the universe cannot go on forever. Using my train analogy from earlier, Saying that God needs a cause is like saying a train engine needs an engine. We know that that is not true as an engine is all that is needed to pull a train. The universe is like a serious of a finite line of train cars and God is the engine that put it all into motivation. I made it clear I had two direction. One with infinities and the other finite. I am sure I stated I believed in a finite universe. Creator requires purpose. The Big Bang does not. It is not a necessity if the Big Bang can be the start of the Universe. The engine of the train requires a human. That human requires oxygen. So on so on. The engine doesn't just work by itself. It requires human input and if you want the engine of the train would be a human since without one the train would not move. These objections really do not disprove the KCA nor my conclusions of it. I say otherwise. Hopefully we both have learnt something new