It Takes More Faith To Be An Atheist

If I understand you right, You don"t personally believe in Atheism, But will you be able to defend and give arguments for its side this debate? It is important that this debate is not Agnosticism vs Theism. I think an atheist would say I don't know about the existence of a God but do not shy away from critiquing modern religions. If you have to press me on an answer I would say I lack the belief of God/s. Premise 1:Believing in God is illogical. God is given so many titles it would be difficult to explain how God exists or might even be impossible. Premise 2:All arguments for God are flawed. Premise 3:No evidence so it is a belief. Agree with this. (And I believe your conclusion was belief = not proven reasonable)Assuming that reason in my eyes requires evidence which belief in a religion does not offer. If that is not what you meant can you clarify it in the comments? So that I understand what you are saying. My Premise 1 rebuttalBut I ask why? God as in the case for Christianity. Is omniscient or all knowing. Meaning God knows what will or is going to happen. If parallel universes do exists then God knows what will happen in every different universe past, Present and future. We as humans cannot fathom knowing that much inform. That is why God is illogical. To retain that much information for a human is impossible even using machines to do so. I highly doubt even the Internet I don't think can handle that. The Internet would require servers. God knows everything and lets say everything is posted on a word document. To say that file size of that file would not be infinite would be a lie if parallel universes are true. If this is the only reality and when a choice is made another universe is not created then it might be manageable to gather every single point of data from the start of the universe until the present if the universe or Earth is 6, 000 years old. If it isn't and science is right then I highly doubt we can even hold the information using our tools not even mentioning processing the information. What I mean by information is everything that existed in each time. Basically we cannot or comprehend a thing that can hold that much data. It is llogical for us to believe this on just belief. I would say an outstanding claim would require outstanding evidence. In conclusion we find that titles are not a reason to discount something"s existence. If I did not make it clear above. We cannot fathom such a thing that can hold such information and the last sentence above would be my blanket statement. My Premise 2 rebuttal This is what a hasty generalization fallacy isI did not do it on purpose. I wanted you to give me an argument that was not flawed to prove me wrong. Hopefully you would give one in the next. Yes it can be perceived as a absolute statement but it was also a blanket statement. The fault is mine. I should have been more clear. In order for this to be true you would also need to provide a deductive argument to why all evidence for God is flawed. I can do that to the arguments you make. I want you to pick the relevant arguments so that I am not mis-characterizing your stance and if I did all arguments I would require more then 8, 000 words. My Premise 3 But that doesn"t make it untrueFair point. I simply stated the belief in itself does not make it true. Using science, Logic or reasoning would make it true. If it was believed to be true it is still a belief. Yes reasoning, Logic or science can say it is true but the belief did not make it true. If you mean subjective truth then everything is true to someone so I don't know where either of us are supposed to go with that. as you have given no evidence for the belief in Atheism as I asked in the round before. Did you? I don't think you made it clear or maybe I misread. I have read it again and there was no mention of burden of proof or evidence or proof that you stated in your Round 1. Maybe it is a fault of mine. You can state it in your next round and quote something you said in Round 1 that you think made it clear that I had a burden of proof. A belief does not require evidence but I will give some anyway. The reason why Atheism is a better belief to have then Theism is because all God's that are mentioned today either are forgotten or have flaws. More specifically the Christianic one. God cannot be all knowing while also giving free will. If you mean free will in the confides of what God allows that is not free will. Free will if God did say it would be the freedom to go against God wishes. Wishes would be to me God's plans. The plans would be visions or whatever God has that determines what happens. Can a human go against what God predicted? Yes then we have free will but God is not all-knowing. No we do not have free will but God is all-knowing. You might say well what about the hypothetical God? All ideas are limited to our perceptions. We cannot know something we do not know. Circular reasoning but it does make sense. An Atheist is a person who found flaws in religions that they know of and rejected the religion due to those flaws. Someone can be born atheist but it is unlikely that will go through life without knowing a religion. Someone might die in their childhood but I did try to fit a majority not all cases since that would be impossible for any human to have every person's case in mind. As of right now. Never know what might happen in the future. Before I get into my responses, I would like to ask if you find anything wrong with the premises and the conclusion established? You seem to skip them and critique my analysis of the conclusion. In other words, It seems that your agree that there is a cause, But you just contend that it isn"t God. Please let me know if this is the case. I used my first round to lay out my premises. I'll try to poke holes in your premises. Your Premise 1We know that all physical things began with some sort of cause, As something cannot come from nothing. To improve your sentence since we do not everything that has occurred. As far as we know all physical things began with some sort of cause. As something cannot come from nothing. As far as we know was added to make sure we both have the idea that it is from our perception not an outside reality perspective where we can see everything looking in. I didn't understand your example so I leave it out that from my rebuttal and I did not think that was needed. Your Premise 2In reality we know absurdities such as an actual infinite cannot existI agree if this is the only reality. If there alternative realities do not exist then this would be right. I think infinite is tagged on to thing because we have not found an answer to it. When we do then that would be removed. I'll watch the video after finishing my Round comment. But instead had a start. I agree with that. I would disagree in this case, Why is that so? What we mean by God, Is the fundamental creator of the universe. In addition this "cause" has certain attributes that makes him different than other causes God: the Being perfect in power, Wisdom, And goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universeThat would be the definition. A beginning can happen without a being with perfect power, Wisdom, Goodness. This can be seen with evolution. You might equate to God since I don't believe God exists I simply state that evolution was not God so it does not require God to be the creator. I guess I would go with the Big Bang. You might say who started the Big Bang? I then would stay who created God? We would gives answers not sufficient for either of us. I will say the Big Bang can be the start. Nothing is impossible until proven otherwise. I would say this is an absolute statement. If not satisfied what would you find difficult to believe about the Big Bang? Yes I did ask that question, The purpose was to illustrate the significance of the Kalam Cosmological ArgumentP1: Whatever begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: Therefore, The universe has a causeThat would be the argument you made. Can the cause be not the creator? Yes so I can believe that the Big Bang started. That falls in line with a cause just like God. There are only two things that would fit in this conclusion: 1. An unembodied mind or 2. Abstract objects like numbers. But abstract objects cannot cause anything, So we are left with an external transcendence personal cause which is what we mean by God. I could go the route that this is a fallacy but I will try to give another argument. Why can't the laws be the cause? We don't have enough information to say other wise so it would be a theory just like a God. From our limited time being intelligent creatures with our limited perception can you think we might possibly not have enough information to say how the universe was created? God can be a plausible argument but when we have enough proof that a God exists then we would have to choose which God is true. That part is only a food for thought not part of my argument but which God is true would still be a problem if it is more plausible then other arguments. First, This entity must not by physical, As physical things cannot create physical things. Second this entity must be all powerful, As to create the vast expanses of time and space itself would require ultimate power. Next this Creator must be uncaused as to fit the conclusion. Finally this Being must be the paradigm of good, Backing the existence of moral truths, Evil being a rejection of these moral truths. That is an assumption with the evidence you have. Physical things can create physical things (babies). Don't have enough space to address all the claim here but God does not need to be good to be God. That would be a might makes right argument. As far as we know might does not make right so God is no different. I will rebut other claims of these at the starting of my next Round argument. May we still learn something newSource: https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/god