Atheism is more logical than theism.

Thank you for your argument. I will demonstrate that Theism is as logical as Atheism; as oppose to the title of this debate, “Atheism is more logical than theism.” Thank you Pro for the definitions on “epistemic” (1) and “theism” (2). The epistemic of theism is simply that it is a belief system and that system is real, otherwise, we will not be having this debate. The belief in the existence of a God or not, is the prime difference between Theism and Atheism respectively. Let's look at a similar example, at one time most thought the earth was flat, a few may have argued the earth was round like all the round objects in the sky. During this period, there were two belief systems due to the lack of empirical data via the scientific method. The logic of their arguments were relatively equal for their axioms did not convince the other population into agreement. Until science gave empirical clarity, then the flat-earth folks faded away. The same is true with Atheism and Theism. Looking at the surface, without getting into the weeds of competing arguments relative to their axioms, we still have a very large population who are Theist compared to Atheist. This empirical evidence of population size demonstrates neither Atheists nor Theists have scientific empirical clarity to make the other folks fade away. As for “evolution” Pro seems to be stuck in some classical Darwinian definition pertaining to only life. Today's understanding of “evolution” is at the level of physics having empirical evidence that it started at the Big-Bang, where the Laws of Thermodynamics is the engine of evolution for both inanimate and animate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.amazon.com...https://www.youtube.com...Think about it, how could you have life without the elements in the periodic table and a planet in the “Goldilocks” zone? They would have to “evolve” from the pure energy state after the Big-Bang; hence, the Constructal Law. It is ironic for a Deist to logically demonstrate the mechanics of evolution, bring forward the latest research, to one who takes the Atheist side of the argument in this debate. Another interesting fact is the traceability path in the logical formation of theistic belief systems, which is an outgrowth of Morality, which is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics.http://www.amazon.com... Due to the 8K limit in this debate, I have presented this traceability path in Round 2 in the following debate: http://www.debate.org...In summary, the empirical evidence of the diversity of language, belief, and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates morality is the common link in group formation during the genesis of a culture. By the way, throughout the ages, the historical record found not one isolated human culture to be atheistic. This non-atheistic phenomena suggests religious faith based norms (“theism”) are associated with life having higher cerebral faculties during the evolution of life.I posed the following challenge to Pro in Round 1: Since evolution is a function of the Laws of Thermodynamics, Pro needs to demonstrate Thermodynamics existed before the Big-Bang; otherwise, Theism is as logical as Atheism.Pro's response follows, “The answer is simply: The laws of physics. Quantum physics allows for quantum fluctuations, which temporarily alter the amount of energy in a point in space, which provided the energy needed to cause the Big Bang (4)(5).”Stephen Hawking's will take issue with Pro's statement. According to Stephen (http://www.hawking.org.uk...): “Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened.”Since we do not know what happened before the Big-Bang, the phrase “more logical,” relative to the title of this debate, is simply relative to one's belief system, until scientific empirical clarity supports one logical argument over the other. Pro's reference (2) the definition of Theism:"belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : 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"Since we do not know what happened before the Big-Bang, the belief or hypothesis in “god or gods” is the event-entity before the Big-Bang. “... the creative source of the human race and the world;” a Law in God's nature known as the Constructal Law. “... who transcends yet is immanent in the world;” the source of the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God, “transcends,” yet these Laws are “immanent in the world.” Pro used the Merriam-Webster's dictionary for the above definition of Theism (2). Using the same dictionary, the definition of Atheism follows (http://www.merriam-webster.com...):“a disbelief in the existence of deity; the doctrine that there is no deity.” So Theism believes, while Atheism does not believe; the key word is belief. A scientist who is indifferent in any belief system about the event before the Big-Bang would state, we simply do not know; which is no belief, because it is simply true. A scientist who is indifferent in any belief system “is more logical then” Theism. A scientist who is indifferent in any belief system “is more logical then” Atheism.Relative to the above Merriam-Webster's definitions on Atheism and Theism, Atheism “is more logical than” man's written scriptures about God. The same is true about Theism, for it “is more logical than” man's written scriptures about God.The binary mode is simply belief (Theism) or no-belief (Atheism), over something they do not know---the event before the Big-Bang which “transcends” the scientific method. Because of their binary mode in belief, Theism is as logical as Atheism; as oppose to the title of this debate, “Atheism is more logical than theism.”