Atheism is the superior position on the existence of a god or gods

OpeningThanks very much for my opponent's response. As readers will recall, my opponent's argument rests entirely on the premise "God claims lack convincing argument and evidence." Now we both agree that the burden should be on him to prove this premise. However, this premise is nearly impossible to prove. The premise does not state "There probably isn't any sound argument for God" or "It's most likely that there isn't any evidence for God." Rather, the premise states that "God claims lack convincing argument and evidence."RefutationsMy opponent argues that since he has never come across a sound argument for theism, or that none of xyz people have, that therefore there probably aren't any. It should be noted that this is inductive reasoning, and cannot defend his claim with absolute certainty. Unfortunately, this is an argument from personal experience, and an argument from authority. (1) This cannot qualify as solid evidence for my opponent's immense claim.My opponent also states: "If there were sufficient argument and evidence for the existence of a god, then any of these scientifically minded atheists would become theists (as would most atheists in the world)"However, I would have to disagree here. Atheist Philosopher Thomas Nagel states, "I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear [the fear of religion] myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers...It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that." (2)Now this may not be the case for all atheists, however one can notice such an attitude from the anti-religious New Atheists.Refuting refutationsMy opponent also argues that the refutations for most arguments, "simply point out logical fallacies and false premises." Regarding false premises: This is an episemological claim, which can be disputed. Is x true? Well it might be, or it might not be. You can argue it either way. However, when my opponent speaks of "logical fallacies" this is not fair to the arguments. When I present an argument, and someone accuses me of committing a logical fallacy, it doesn't necessarily mean I have committed that fallacy. In fact, my opponent implies that Aquinas' Five Ways beg the question and commit a special pleading. It's not clear how they do, but it is simply not true. Aquinas argues for each of his premises, which are based extensively on his metaphysics. If one were to simply read the Five Ways without knowledge of Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics, it would surely seem he was just begging the question. But as it is, Aquinas has argued at length for the metaphysical framework his arguments rely on. (3) Furtheremore, the "special-pleading" fallacy is also easily done away with. First Way: Whatever moves is moved by another. God is not moving, so he is not moved by another. Second Way: Whatever has a distinct essence and existence is caused by another. God's essence and existence are not distinct, so he is not caused by another. This suffices to show and to give an example that what my opponent believes may be pointing out logical fallacies in arguments, really aren't logical fallacies in the first place, and are based on a misunderstanding of the argument.Assert that assertionMy opponent simply states that there are problems with the arguments he names. However, simply asserting something does not make it true. I can assert the exact opposite.The Cosmological Argument (has true premises, and no formal logical fallacies)The Five Ways (only look like special pleading and begging the question if you haven't studied the underlying metaphysics.)The Argument from Miracles (the most viable option is a supernatural occurence)Now I can also assert: All responses to theistic arguments rest upon misunderstandings of the arguments.My opponent is pretty much just asserting "All the arguments for God fail. Do some research and you'll see." However, I can simply do the same. "All the refutations for theistic arguments fail. Do some research and you'll see."Blind faithNow as my opponent would probably agree, he is basing his entire argument off of his interpretation of theistic arguments. But why should we accept his interpretation of these arguments? He claims that each of these arguments make logical fallacies, but why should we trust his judgment? This is asking us to make a tremendous leap of faith.Other ways of believing in God?Finally, there are other ways to believe in God, or to have a justified belief in God, besides sound arguments. If God were to reveal himself personally to you, you would probably believe in God. You would in fact be justified to believe in God. However, you can't formulate this into a sound argument or evidence. This invalidates my opponent's fourth premise.ConclusionIn conclusion, my opponent's argument rests upon the premise "God claims lack convincing argument and evidence." Unfortunately, this is a nearly impossible-to-prove premise. Thus, it is understandable why my opponent's argument rests upon personal experience, appeals to authority, and appeal to the internet. Unfortunately, this just will not do, and this premise is shaky at best. I believe that I have sufficiently refuted the arguments my opponent has given in favor of this, and the resolution remains unaffirmed.Thanks for a great debate, ThatZachGuy! :)Please vote Con!(And yes, I know I ramble on xD)(1) http://www.nizkor.org...(2) http://www.goodreads.com...(3) http://dhspriory.org...