It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

This is a bit confusing. I will require to look through two Rounds to see if I have addressed the point in the next Round or what Pro is saying I have not stated. -1. You really have not responded to my argument of infinities, Simply if infinities don"t exist, Then we cannot have an infinite of anything, Even universes. Please show me how infinities exist in reality. I said if. I would go with the Universe is finite. The cause does not require to be God. Leave it at that since I am sure I have addressed it in Round 3. 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 creationI am not ignoring it. Power is relative. It may seem God has infinite power or it is perfect but current sources say otherwise. A President only has the power that the people offer him. Kim's power is on the basis of his dictatorship. God's power is if I assumed It's existence was only shown to create the universe. We do not know the full extent of It so it is all predication. Evidence has still not been found. Because evolution does not explain itselfGod does not explain itself. So I do not see your point. Being the creator of this universe does not mean he created others. But as I pointed out earlier there must be a cause to everything, If God is the cause of everything. God still requires a cause. You do not seem to see that. What created God? So then you now say that nothing caused everythingBig Bang is nothing. It is the start of the universe. There was nothing before the start. Meaning the cause of the Big Bang was the start. So God causing everything? Nothing causing everything. God cannot just appear. Meaning God also came from something. The flaw you pointed out applies to God also. Mine does not require purpose therefore I cannot understand what It wants instead it just exists. God requires purpose and that is where Religion comes in. An engine must exist. God would also require an engine. If you cannot agree that the Big Bang cannot be the start of the universe then how can you agree God is the start of the Universe? As the Big Bang cannot justify itself, It needs a cause. As God cannot justify itself, It needs a cause. You are for the side that God exists. So how did God exist? laws cannot explain themselves, So I am guessing you require purpose for the start of the Universe? I don't see why that is the case. Evolution has no purpose because it is not sentient. For you to assume the universe requires sentience does require proof. They need to be created and they cannot createGod can create but cannot be created is why I am getting from your stance. Which does not seem logical is something comes from something. God also requires a cause. I find this an ad hominems in disguiseNo it isn't. We only have 5 senses. We do not have a six once. Therefore the statement cannot be considered an Ad hominems in disguise. I don't know how an ad hominems can be in disguise. God doesn"t contradict his own will and so God cannot be evil. God can still be good with contradictions. So this requires burden of proof. Agreed do definition of logic, Now prove me wrongThe burden of proof is on you to say how God is illogical. I am not saying God exists you are. A builder cannot build himselfBut a God can? Meaning he existed before it. We don't know there are other universes or there was a universe before this one. I think it is pretty obvious what the Theistic God is. No it isn't which is why there are so many religion. Why are Palestine and Israel fighting is they believe in the same God. Religion and theism are linked. You cannot have one without the other. I have not heard of a theist which is not apart of a Religion. 1. Circular reasoning, Cross apply above response. No it wasn't. We do not have solid reasoning for God's existence therefore God is illogical. 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. This is the problem. An argument must first be first before the conclusions can be assessed. I stuck with the arguments because they are flawed. If the arguments are flawed then conclusion would be on a flawed argument. I don't see the point in rebutting the conclusion when the argument is wrong. Assertion, Evidence needed. I don't think it does. I am not supposed to prove God's non-existence you are supposed to prove God's existence. 1. Does not disprove God. You are supposed to prove God's existence. God cannot have flaws since God is supposed to be the source of all moral authority. If he is wrong then he is not the source of all moral authority. 1. Assertion, Please show where I did not uphold my burden of proof. Your arguments were the KCA and many other conclusions. Conclusions did rely on the KCA being right and I have proven KCA to be wrong. 1. Circular reasoning, Please prove this. Again no it wasn't. No evidence for existence of God is not circular reasoning. 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 definitionAllah is not Yahweh. Yahweh is not Allah. Allah says the Quran is It's holy book. Yahweh says the Bible is It's holy book. Both of them cannot be right therefore there is no God of theism. 2. Regardless I spelled out who God is in this debate when I examined His attributes in round one. You missed out what God does. God either had divine intervention in the Torah, Bible, Quran etc. Without noticing this you are clearly removing what God does in order to say there is a God of theism which is simply not true. 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. The barebones is not what God can be simplified too. God is shown many different Religions. They all state what God does and 1 is right or all of them are wrong. Theism requires a belief in religion so we cannot not account for it. If I knew someone was going to win the lottery by buying a ticket and then they bought the ticketYou are not all-knowing. Were they then restricted and forced to bye the lottery ticket? You forgot to mention the capabilities of God and you. God is the creator of the universe and you are a human. There is a difference. Not being able to choose the past does not mean that you can't make free decisions in the future. You might think you have decisions but there was only one outcome. The brain can make many illusions I can simply state the brain make another illusion. An illusion of choice. logicae do not rebut what I said here. Rebut only what I said in Round 3. This is more of the same what I said in Round 3 but since you did not rebut my claims in Round 3 that requires rebutting and take priority in what I said here.