It is illogical for someone to disbelieve in God.

Thanks very much for the reply. I will also go by the definition of atheism which Con has presented, the type of atheism we are going by is hard atheism. Going by hard atheism, I am to say that to believe in hard atheism it is illogical, if not arrogant. I will speak on this matter before I start to refute my opponents arguments. To say that God cannot exist is quite an assertion to make. Given that an assertion is based on little or no evidence, to say God does not exist is poking a stick at arrogance. If you were to know everything about the universe, you could still not know whether God exists, this is because we translate facts by our own world views. But not only that, but also because God is abstract, God is not subjected to dictatorship of the physical realm, in other words God cannot be proved or disproved due to discoveries and finds of the physical realm. To say that God could exist, but I do not believe that He does, is a large step from saying, God does not exist. To say God could exist is to acknowledge that the universe is not directly in His power, and what I mean by that, is when odd and unusual things happen which cannot be explained by naturalistic world views. It is not to say God must have done it, yet God could have caused it in some way or another, or at least it is related to the realm that God also dwells in. In short, weak atheism isn't really atheism at all, rather agnosticism. If that is so, then hard atheism is simply atheism, and that is going back to my claim in the first round, atheism is illogical. Atheists can attack at the proofs seemingly made for the existence of God and say they are incorrect or irrational, but atheists cannot say there is no God, putting this into analogy it is like this; if two people were to argue that their lives were better than one anthers, each of them could argue that they had a life far better than the others, boastful as it may seem, this is just an analogy. So one of them could say, "My life is 4 times better than your life." The other could bring up a larger number, and say 5 times better and so on. And then there is always the classical, "My life is always 1 plus better than yours." To go as far as saying 100 times better is quite absurd, yet the argument is still valid. The point here is that no one can disprove God, and therefore hard, or just atheism is illogical. 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, an agnostic does not know whether God exists, so I would like my opponent to distinguish reasonably what the difference is between an atheist and an agnostic in round two. To say there is evidence to show that God does not exist is absurd, for one, how does one give evidence for something not in existence? Of course that is the atheistic view, but it cannot be given credit for any evidence. The evidence which is supposedly coherent will just fill a void, an emptiness that ceases to find God, but that is not to say God does not exist. There is no evidence against God's existence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RUFUTATION: My opponent has posted a video which he thinks suggests not everything which has an outside has an inside. But this is simply fallacious. In the video, the paper cut out has no properties that suggest an inside or an outside, but rather one side and another. 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. There is nothing to suggest an inside and an outside like in my analogy in my previous round. My argument (to refresh) claims that if an object has an outside or inside, it must have an inside or outside. In other words, one cannot be without the other. I am relating the existence of God to this analogy in that if the universe exists (which it does) then God must also exist. Of course I am using an analogy, so keep that in mind. I find it a struggle to see where my opponent is refuting my argument. My opponent has spoken on inductive logic, that, if it is the case that all the ducks I have seen so happened to be white I am therefore to assume that all ducks (even the ones I have yet to see) are white. I find it difficult to relate this to my analogy of, if an object has an inside or outside, it must have an outside or inside. In that, an atheist is the one saying that the object has no inside or outside, just because they have never experience an outside or inside before. The theist or monotheist is the one claiming there is an inside or an outside even though they too have never experience an inside or an outside. To say there is no outside to an object for example, is to reject the present idea of physicality and more so, the idea of logic. It is illogical (despite whether one has or has not experience an in or outside) to suggest that an object lacks one of those properties. In the same way, it is illogical to suggest that the universe spontaneously appeared with no cause. Whether by opponent wants to reject the idea of logic, that is up to him, but if he decides to, then my opponent should lose this debate. If my opponent wants to reject the idea of logic, it would therefore to understandable for him to say the universe spontaneously came into existence without a cause. In that, it is possible that he could be right, yet that is to say logic is incorrect and incoherent. My opponent must supply evidence that God cannot exist, and to remind, he must also distinguish what the difference is between weak atheism and agnosticism. By doing so, it will make it reasonable for someone to call themselves an atheist instead of an agnostic, and with hard atheism, I hope I have convinced you (the reader) that it is illogical. Thank you.