Resolved: Theism is logical

I'm going to take it that we will continue first rebuttals this round, though I still apologize for time simply never wavers in this reality. ==First Rebuttal== "Logical Theists." Yes we have famous people too: http://brainz.org... I see no proof in logic at all in this, people will believe what they believe, Newton, for example, was heavy in alchemy which was not a real science. All are prone to logical errors, only way to avoid this is just simple peer review, but some don't want such review. How could people fall into these errors? Well they could want it be true and and try to form evidence to show it to be true, or the could want it to be true and not attempt to proof its true and deny or ignore anything stating its not true. Though I commend your effort in an argumentum ad populum, but stating "because these guys believed it, it must be true" does not, by any means, make it logical. Argumentum ad populum http://goo.gl... "Argument 1: The Kalam Theological Argument" So this begs the question, Where did the universe come from? Yet why did it have to come from anything? But everything should come from something. Then where did the universe come from? Universe was made by god(s). But then where did god come from? because god is eternal and doesnt come from anything. Then perhaps everything doesn't need to come from something, therefore perhaps the universe doesn't need something to exist. If your going to make an argument of the existence of the universe shows god is logical therefore theism is logical, at least provide an argument that isn't so illogical contradictory. If your going to say everything needs cause, but again state god doesn't need cause, you have completely flawed your previous statement. For if it needs cause and god is without cause, god is then illogical. "Argument 2: The Ontological Argument" Imagination/Imaginary is like this, Imagine a pepperoni pizza and once you have the image in your mind, I now ask you to imagine that pizza as an existing pepperoni pizza, nothing would change. One cant just imagine a pizza and make it poof into reality, but if one bounds the limitations of reality to the imaginary space, you could develop the steps to make that pizza, which in reality could be followed to make said pizza. For imagination is the source of possibilities, not a source of logic. We can determine possibilities to be capable of being produced in reality by rational explanation by logically observing and science. The possibility of the earth being round, it became rational when one observes the horizon, the moon, and was confirmed by the circular navigation of earth and reconfirmed by going into space. Imagination does not need to be logical for it is possibility, but possibility does not need to be logical reason why you could imagine a pink unicorn building the universe, but rationality does not comply for there is no evidence through logical observation and science to support it. But god doesn't have steps which are based in reality and he can only be expressed in imaginary space making him a possibility but not something that can happen in reality bound by logic and science, therefor, again, making him illogical. "Argument 3: The Teleological Argument" Trying to compare the universe to a manmade object is a false analogy, the vast system we know as the universe operates on a completely different scale than something mankind can make, and if a designer is needed to make complex object, then what could be more complex than making said designer? Not to mention the hostility that the universe expresses to life outside the earth making the "watch" as you put it without any fine tuning to life alone. Also due to its vastness one could say life may also exist out in the deep reaches on this universe, saying were the only ones is kind of arrogant and selfish. Also if a multiverse exists then this concept falls on its face, for again shows the lack of fine tuning in the universe. http://goo.gl... "Argument 4: Argument from morality." "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death." "" Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 1930 Theism: : "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world: -Merriam Webster Though I do not agree with this definition for it contradicts itself, transcends and immanent a literal polar opposites, and since you're going the morality route, we must expand are defined theism, for it does not state god created morality, only the source of the creation for the human race. So which theism do you refer to? Without theism we have no morality, The argument that theism brings morality, that it make sure we don't kill each other, no theism, no morality. I fear this is complete unlogical, for if, hypothetically, a god asks you to sacrifice your child to prove your loyalty, you and other people would morally choose to not obey, but if morality is given by god or gods, by what moral standard are you abiding by if you refuse to this decree by god who defines morality? If morality comes from God, children not raised by their parents or raised with no structure, would develop into a person who is morally righteous, this is not the case. It was morality standard for you to, Incestuous relationships Slavery Pederasty in Ancient Greece Human sacrifice in Aztec civilization Chinese foot binding Burning of Hindu widows on deceased husband's pyre in India (Sati) Child sacrifice or Infanticide Gendericide (Or, a preference for one gender to the other, as seen in some Asian societies) Pedophilia Polygamy Prostitution Sexism Racism Stoning So if you're applying god gives us this notion of morality (Innate Morality), before the bible (Authority Morality), when we come into this reality, then please share this evidence of people before the bible having are modern moral standards. Show me how morality was simply always there and never changing, which is what you're applying, for I have found no such evidence that morality is constant. There is no evidence for were simply not allowed to test children in a environment to find out, set standards that don't change and see how the character of the child develops. No one wants to because its considered immoral, and the answer maybe scary. People wish to believe we hold this innate morality, but the mind at such an early age does not have a clue, it is simply experiencing the world as it is with mixed feelings, when a child is introduced into society they are then exposed to a formal conduct developed over thousands of years of human experience. I personally would like to see this experiment done just to get to the bottom of it, but does that make me immoral? I would be as moral as a being who would condemn a person to eternal suffering for not obeying his/her command. Morality was simply developed over time and changes as society builds from its primitive beginnings. Not something a divine being gave mankind or it wouldn't simply change constantly for it would stay constant, what was once moral would stay moral not become immoral, which is exactly what happens in this reality. (secular objective morality, Evolving Morality) http://goo.gl... Conclusion: Theism is illogical for god is illogical, though there has been some logical theists this does not mean their beliefs were logical, for everyone is capable of illogical thought, but were not settling for illogical conclusions were seeking the logical explanation or we would still believe the sun being a god and not a ball of gas. BoP still falls on my opponent.