Agnostic Atheism Is The Most Logical Default Position

The corrections you made sound fair. I will attempt to clarify my resolution and some of the definitions. I think I may have made the title of this debate a little too specific. I would change it to "Non-theism Is More Logical Than Theism". My resolution is that agnosticism/weak atheism is more logical a philosophical stance than theism. DefinitionsWhen I say "agnostic," I am using the second definition you provided. I call myself an agnostic atheist, meaning I don't believe that there is a god but I don't think it is knowable one way or the other. I simply see no reason to believe in God. You could just as well call me a weak atheist, I suppose. I will now present my main arguments:God is the bigger leap of faithTo believe in God requires such a massive leap of faith because there is simply not enough empirical evidence supporting the existence of God. Any evidence or scientific reasoning you use to suggest God can equally, or even better, be used to support non-theistic theories. Take the "fine-tuning" or teleological argument for example. We could say that the sum of all the complexity in the universe points to the existence of an intelligent designer. But it requires too great a leap of faith to explain the universe with an even more incomprehensible being who is invisible, otherworldly, and supposedly supernatural. We could more simply say that the complexity of the universe is due to natural processes like evolution and general cause and effect. We don't know everything about the universe, but this is not a sufficient reason to jump to the conclusion that it was created by an omnipotent, omniscient being who cannot be seen or tested in any way. Agnosticism, or in my case, weak atheism, makes no unnecessary leap of faith. I conclude there is no reason to believe in God, therefore a non-theistic position is more logical. God doesn't really answer the questionEssentially, God is usually defended to answer the big questions, such as "Why do we exist? ", and "Why are things the way they are? ". If we use God to answer the question of how the universe came from nothing, then the same question applies to God: How did God come to exist? If our answer is that God always existed, why not say that the fundamental laws of the universe always existed? Any ontological or cosmological questions that apply to the universe also apply to God. God does not answer ontological or cosmological questions. I, as an agnostic atheist, would rather be patient and wait for science to answer these questions, if possible. Because God really solves no problems. Again, I conclude there is insufficient reason to believe in God, therefore non-theism is more logical than theism. A reasonable person would bet against the existence of GodLet's say that someone comes along and offers you a bet. You have to bet on whether or not God exists, and if you bet correctly, you get an unlimited number of wishes and you don't die. If you lose, you die immediately. Now, in determining which way you bet, I assume you would use empirical evidence and logic to weigh your decision, just as you would if you were betting on a horse in a race. You would care about figures and statistics, hard information, rather than faith on a given horse because someone told you that that is the horse that will win, despite any evidence for that being the case. Similarly, in betting on the existence of God, there is not enough evidence for God to risk such high stakes and such loss. A reasonable person would weigh the scientific evidence and bet that God does not exist because there is no sure reason to believe he does, and God is simply too outrageous a claim to accept on faith alone. Again, I conclude that in this situation there is no reason to believe in God, therefore non-theism is more logical than theism.