It is illogical for someone to disbelieve in God.

Note in the following, after some definitions and general commentary, an attempt will be made to summarize the contentions for clarity, if a mistake is made then I would request of Pro, please make the required corrections so the discussion can continue with a proper foundation. "it is totally illogical for someone to be an atheist or rather, for someone to believe in atheism." First, it is required to define a few terms : Atheism : to deny the existence of God[1] Now here is where the first complication arises, deny has two common meanings[2] : a) to assert something is false b) to refuse to accept something is true This distinction here is the difference between stating that God does not exist as opposed to stating that there is no evidence for God's existence, commonly known as hard vs weak atheism. Now since the argument is one of "to believe in atheism" atheism will be used to mean hard atheism, where a position is taken and this position is that there is no God. "This is contradicting of course, and even more of course, illogical. We know that if something has an out side it will have an in side without having to observe the in side." It appears that the argument is (paraphrase) given what is known of the properties of the universe and what can be observed then God has to exist, to deny this is to deny either what is known about the universe or to not logically consider this information and reach the proper conclusion. However there is even at this point a serious flaw even though what is specifically being used in the argument is still as yet unknown, and ironically this flaw it is present in the exact example used. Not everything that has an outside has an inside. A Mobius Strip has only an outside (or inside) : http://www.youtube.com... This illustrates the problem of going from a sample to a population law, i.e., all ducks I see are white (unless you have seen all ducks you are taking a sample), thus all ducks are white (all meaning the entire population of ducks and would-be future ducks). This general problem has lead to the general question of how to tell the truth of a scientific assertion as deduction has obvious problems as you can never measure a population as you can never observe the universe (and would-be future universe obviously, and has-been past universe either). "In the analogy the mythical creature of which is undetectable is located in one place only. Due to the creatures undetectable qualities, it might be anywhere, but just because you cannot locate it, it does mean logically that it is everywhere - that would make no sense." The invisible unicorn argument is simply meant to illustrate that because you can not prove something does not exist does not mean you should assert it does exist. "I believe this because like with my analogy which is for my argument, if there is a universe, there is a creator." It seems this then is the main argument, since the universe exists, then it must have been created, something created it, this something is God. To take the position that this is not true one would have to deny either (or all) : a) the universe exists b) the universe was created (did not exist at some point) c) the creation was a caused event (something did it) And further to deny any (or all of these) would be illogical based on what we know about the universe (or in general how we at least think about the universe). Before a rebuttal can be made, clarification is sought on is this representative of the argument being presented. Finally, the last point of clarification is that for the purpose of discussion here, God is simply that which has created the universe. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...