Atheism is a lie.

thanks Con for making your points. And my apologies for forfeiting the last round. However I feel this may only require one final round to bring to close. My opponent takes charge to find dispute with the terminology God. I have only defined God is the creator of life and the universe Or all known matter thereof. My opponent wishes for me to concede that this definition must include being "sentient" in order to "call" the creator of all known matter as "God", in the way most religions propose.. I hope this is correct. Allow me to clarify my position for allowing such a broad definition of God, without including the notion of being sentient. To be sentient, means that it must consciously think and feel. Although we all describe God as thinking and feeling various notions , if we were think of God to be created and man's image, like Zeus, a deity, this would be a laughable notion. No one believes in zeus any more. Why is God different from Zeus? Simply because thanks to jewish religion and philosophy, God cannot be made in man's image., but the other way around. We are made in his. Now, without knowing God's "image" how are we to know in what way our image is made from "God's"? Which part of being a human can be said to be MADE in "God's image"? Many like to say it is our sense of morality, but biblical teaching also teach us that morality was not made within us, but acquired by "eating of te fruit." So to be made in God's image must mean something else. I contend it is our ability to use words, symbols, semiosis and therefore create new things. If this could be said, then it begs the question, why must God be sentient? Why must God be ANY one thing that humans perscribe TO him ? Aside from being the creator, ie. Father or life? And if God created life, and exists outside of life, why must we define God to also exist with thoughts and feelings that are defined in the same way ours are? Within a space time continuum. If God exists outside of space and time, his thoughts and feelings are not bound by any known phsysical laws what so over, Then how do you know what God's thoughts and feelings are really like? Thoughts and feelings outside of space and time may very well be like the physics of nature. Eternal yet reflecting semiosis. How do you assume God's sentience is...anything like our own? It could verywell be , the Laws of physics are governed by God's thoughts. And Gods very thoughts created all known and unknown physicsl laws. After all, it is God we are talking about. So I propose the definition that Con provides us with, God bein sentient, is not a willful obfuscation , but a misunderstanding about what Modern humans commonly understand when referring to God, atheists often take the notion of God or Deity from video games or movies, and readily apply it to real life. However, if one detached themselves from the activity of cleansing your understanding with brainwashing mediums, and took a closer look at what the bible or any religious teaching conveys, it cannot be understood that God is a deity. In fact, the Old Testament bible which appears the same time of Zeus, specifically tells ppl 1.not to worship any idols 2. Not to create any images made to worship idols or gods. This is a tradition that reflects the elimination of deistic traditions. 5000 years before any atheist thought of it. This rabbinic tradition is what allowed for the deliverance of Christianity, while establishing a framework for a non-deistic monotheistic God. The notion of sentience comes along with the various ideas that God speaks, and wants a certain lifestyle from his created earthly inhabitant. This idea that God speaks and hears, quickly becomes understood as God being sentient in the same way that humans Are. With physical boundaries and Temporal limitations. This assumption that God is a physical entity contradicts the modern monotheistic concept of an An immaterial and eternal God. Simply because this God is described as being "immaterial" or "invisible", it does not mean that you can therefore imagine God to be Zeus and he is whatever has not been seen. If we assert God is invisible, yet exists everywhere, it only asserts a quality about God like it is a description about air. The invisibility does not define Air. Nor does it allow you to imagine a desitic figure that created the wind. The air is invisible by nature. In light of the above FACTS, it is hopelessly concluded that God has NEVER been conclusively defined or accurately imagined by any human mind known to man. With the exception of a few alleged people -Known as prophets , buddhas, and christs. These are typically the founders of a religion, not the perpetuators. The founders propose a definition of God for all to adhere to, yet the founders themselves never DEFINED God. All they did was help people understand Him better. Thus, any atheist attempt to disclaim their belief about God based on evidence is a lie. My opponent claims "i have plenty of reasons to disbelieve God because there is no evidence for God ." This is illogical. How could there be plenty of reasons yet no evidence? This is only one reason based on a faulty assumption. The assumption that God has been defined, and my opponent knows what evidence to even look for. Unless my opponent claims he is Jesus, and KNOWS exactly who or what this supposed God is, he cannot claim there is no evidence for it. Also unless my opponent KNoWS exactly how the universe began, he cannot deny that is was created by God, sentient or not. Thus, the only way my opponent can Deny God, is to lie about knowing or being able to know if God exists or not. As for me, I am taking the humble, sane approach- which is to say that human understanding is limited and therefore I dont know if God exists or not, yet I believe it to be so, given what we understand. We understand life doesnt just appear from nonlife. We understand humans are somehoe different from animals. We understand that the balance of creation is perfect we understand everything that begins to exist needs cause And we understand that the universe had a beginning. We understand such a thing as morality, good and evil. We understand that we have no explanation for it. We understand that the human mind is immensely complicated. We understand that the consicousnes of humans are a mystery still. My opponent believes Science Contradicts God because God exists outside space and time or known physical laws. This is highly illogical. Because science itself does not UNDERSTAND that which exist outside space and time, it does NOT contradict anything it does not understand . supposedly quantum mechanics also exists outside of space and time, and the physical laws governing particals in the quantum realm are unknown. Then do quantum particles no longer exist? Certainly they do. In closing. God may not exist. And the atheist may be right. But to say you have "reasons" or "evidence" to believe such a baseless assertion as atheism is a simple lie. Atheism can only be honest, if it is honest about its IGNOrANCE to the notion of God and notion of creation. To be honest, the atheist must say "i dont know." Anything beyond it such as "reasoning" "evidence" or even "logic." Does not provide an atheist with any actual substance for their assertion That they have evidence agaisnt God. In effect , an honest atheist =an honest agnostic. Somone who says "i dont know." And even when an honest agnostic utters the word "evidence," you can be sure that honest agnostic has just come a lying atheist. The end.