It is illogical for someone to disbelieve in God.

"The point here is that no one can disprove God, and therefore hard, or just atheism is illogical." This is a common argument against hard atheism, and in fact it is almost always the opening argument used by Dr. William Lane Craig, one of the most prominent Christian apologists who in debates will commonly demand a case be made for atheism, i.e., do not just deny God, prove there is no God. This almost always degenerates into the invisible unicorn argument which is however only valid for weak atheism - i.e, there is no evidence for God, this can not defend hard atheism - there is no God. It is very true, there is no way to falsify God empirically, assuming a Christian-like definition of God, however that is not the route traditionally used by a hard atheist. As an example of a logical argument for hard atheism, simply consider the stance of one of the most outspoken hard atheists, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens will deny the existence of God, even in the condition that God was to directly manifest before him upon death. This seems not only illogical but even delusional, but what Hitchen's is denying is that such a creature does not deserve the title of divine, is not worthy of worship, is in no way a God, simply very powerful. He describes such a being as akin to the over bearing parent, always watchful, always judging - a tyrant who does not wish for his children to be independent, but always expects, nay, demands fealty. This is an immature being, almost infantile who sits waiting with such gleeful joy to judge his creations for the faults that he himself created in them. "An atheist does not know whether or not God exists, they ultimately assume that God does not exist, yet it is irrational to assume such." To assume would not be irrational, maybe arrogant yes, but assumptions are part of rational thought, we all assume for example, in order to function that existence is. However most hard atheists are not making an assumption about God, they are making some assumption yes, but it is usually much more foundational and then from that concluding there is no God, and some go as far as to conclude there could be no God. Examples of such arguments are : a) The argument from non-belief b) the problem of suffering c) the freewill conflict All of these take a known observable (there are people who do not believe in God, but would given evidence) and then conclude from what is known about God (that it is all powerful/knowing/good) that the former should not exist given the latter and thus the latter does not exist. Now, all of these arguments have a wealth of positional information on both sides and they are far from settled, but they are most certainly based on logic. In fact if one was to argue for illogical positions and arrogance, it should be to deny that such an argument could not be made is most arrogant, especially in spite of the enormous amount of discussion which has taken place, and continues to take place among the very people who are scholars of logic and in the institutions which teach the same. "so I would like my opponent to distinguish reasonably what the difference is between an atheist and an agnostic in round two." An agnostic is one who takes a position that it unknowable if a position is true or false. A weak atheist simply takes the position that there is no evidence for God. "Paper is flat, and in the video the paper has been twisted to create a illusion where if you were to draw a line down the middle of the strip, the line will join up. " Exactly right, and thus it has one side, but yet before it was folded it clearly had two. The point here is not everything has an inside and an outside, simply because everything that is seen has a property does not mean that everything which could be seen has that property. Note that object is not the only such contrary example. For example consider the sun, it clearly could be noted to have an outside and inside (the surface is clearly the outside, and the core is on the inside), but what happens when it collapses to a black hole, does it still have an outside and inside, does it have any sides? "I am relating the existence of God to this analogy in that if the universe exists (which it does) then God must also exist." If the argument is as noted in the above, that everything which has been observed to exist has a cause, etc. therefore God, as noted, simply because everything we have observed to come into existence is caused does not mean it could be deduced that everything which comes into existence has to be caused, as noted this is the general problem of all ducks I have seen are white, therefore all ducks are white. However the atheist need not stop here, as we know there are uncaused events. What causes for example radioactive decay? It happens, constantly, but what specifically is observed to causes it - nothing, it just happens. Quantum Theory (the Copenhagen Interpretation) is indeterminate by nature. On the most basic level quantum interactions among virtual particles can create matter, but what causes them? Nothing that has been observed, and thus there are things which we observe which are not caused. In short there are two main contentions : a) There is no way to logically deny God as God is transcendent. b) There is no way to logically deny God as the universe exists. Arguments have been given in the above to refute both claims and show that logic can, and is in many ways, utilized to conclude there is no, and further there could be no God.