Atheism is more rational than Christianity

"The correct definition of atheism (according to the dictionary cited below) is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." If you do not affirm this belief, it seems to me you are not an atheist at all, but rather an agnostic..." 1 You seem to have ignored the second definition on the page. "disbelief in gods/deities". That is the definition I, and most other athiests, adhere to. An agnostic is one who doesn't know or claims that nobody can know whether god exists. Agnosticism concerns knowledge, atheism concerns belief in. They are not mutually exculsive and i actually adhere to both. For the sake of this debate please use only the 2nd definition as that is the one i am arguing about and the one that applies to me personally. "In short, God in general is an unfalsifiable entity. We've no means of measuring or testing for god. We dont even know where to begin with going about testing the question of a gods existence. And this goes for all religions really. Based on this how can anyone claim to know that a god exists? or even simply believe one exists?" "You are correct in saying that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However, we are able to give evidence either in favor or against the existence of God. In a civil court trial, we cannot prove to an absolute certainty that either side is right, but we can listen to the evidence and follow it where it leads." True but in court in order for the defendant to be guilty, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. "In the same way, I expect that though the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven to an absolute certainty, we can both follow the evidence where it leads and come to a conclusion on which side is more probable in being right (or, in the case of this debate, whether Christianity is even rational at all.)" Fair enough. Faith by definition is unreasonable. It is unreasonable to claim knowledge about the unknowable. "I am interested in hearing your justification for believing that the past is real, the external world exists, etc. I think you will find that there are several things we believe on the basis of faith that we would not consider unreasonable. There are a number of things unaccounted for by the scientific method that each of us, theist and atheist alike, believe without controversy. It seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God exists." Faith is belief in something without evidence first and foremost. I believe what occured in the past explicitly for the reason that there is evidence supporting what such things happened. Geological evidence, fossily, artifacts, historical records, ect. These are all evidences of events. It takes no faith to believe the earth was once ruled by dinosaurs or that Ceasar Augustus existed. As for the external world existing thats sort of delving into solipcism. Are we in a matrix? is it really real? My objection is that my senses seem to be working in accordance with the rest of humanity in that we can all agree for the most part what is real. I have no reason to assume otherwise nor could it ever be proven otherwise. "I think the incoherence would lie in a belief that God is within space and time, rather than outside of space and time. I see nothing incoherent about the idea of a God that transcends both space and time." What is incoherent is that we don't even know if there is a beyond space and time. We dont even know if that state of being is even possible. If a god were within space and time it would be much easier and would lower the burden of having to prove the existence of a god in a realm of human ignorance. It would also make more practical the idea of a god interacting with the universe within space and time. But i digress. Responding to the omnipotence paraxox (running out of character space): So you would say that god can do anything that is logically possible? Fair enough. Let me propose the argument in a more organized logical argument through premises: 1) God is omnipotent 2)Omnipotence is the power to do all things logically possible (in accordance with your objection) 3) A logically possible feat is any coherent action one can speak out loud without contradiction 3a) any feat that has been done before is logically possible 4) It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (From #3) 5)Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (From #2-4) 6) Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being (definition of "maker" by an omnipotent being" 7)For any finite mass of rock it is logically possible to generate a force that will lift it against a uniform gravitational field (Newtons 2nd Law) 8) Therfore an omnipotent being can lift any finite mass of rock (From #2 and #7) 9) Premise #6 and premise #8 are contradictions 10) Therfore it is logically impossible to be omnipotent (From #3 and #8) 11) Therefore, god (as defined as omnipotent) is logically impossible I do not think we have been provided any good reason to think that the Christian God is illogical. The suggested incoherence of a transcendent God has not been supplemented with any sort of argument, and the question of God creating a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it is has been addressed as an incoherent question of itself. The argument is that being beyond space and time is incoherent and wholly unknowable and non demonstrable. Yet Christians claim they know their god exists there. That is unreasonable. Also i addressed the paradox above. I. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. Usually this would go as the final premise. Putting it here just allows me to show you havent demonstrated that and ignore the rest. i wont but just know i could. i. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Everything in human existence has come about through "creatio ex materia" or the rearrangement of pre-existing materials. To say a god created the universe would be "Creation ex nihilo" or creation out of nothing. To claim "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is to attempt to equate everything we know with what we should expect from a god. Yet they are two different methods of creation. ii. The universe began to exist. A statement about a realm of human ignorance while also equating creatio ex nihilo with creation ex materia. iii. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Full response at: Please check it out as it explains exactly what i would have if i had more characters II. God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of our universe for intelligent life. Stop there. You've merely asserted fine tuning without demonstrating it. The rest cannot logically follow unless you do so. i. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design. Its not really either of these but that isnt important right now. ii. It is not due to physical necessity or chance. Ignoring the above this is once again an assertion. All our evidence seems to indicate what you would call "chance" iii. Therefore, it is due to design. III. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties. Youve asserted objective morality exists without demonstrating it. Morality is subjective to so many factors like culture, time period, situation, ect. i. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Reverse it. ii. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Assertion. iii. Therefore, God exists. Even if i granted objective morality existed how would it logically follow that a god provided them, let alone the exact god of the bible? It would be a non sequitur to just make that leap.