Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

Thanks to pro for a very amusing argument. It seems like he did not look into any of the claims I made, or any of the sources, and for that I fear he has shown little more than his reluctance to educate himself. Theism - belief in the existence of a deity. Why I used the bible: Christians believe in god because of the bible. Christianity is a form of theism by definition; I used only the bible because I could barely fit two examples I provided; much less fit all the examples from the myriad of other theistic texts. God has a right to mass murder, yep that seems moral…. “God had the right to destroy creations that stood against His will.” What logical sense does that make? Does that mean if I built a house for someone else to live in, and three years into their living it in I can take a bulldozer to it? If you think so, then again I question your source of morality… A mother can kill her child simply because she is the mother; she gave birth and thus life to it? No. Eugenics, even if it’s done for a good reason, it’s still eugenics and still immoral. “The crimes of people on earth before the Flood are described as being extreme, and certainly deserving of death.” As I pointed out reason for the act committed does not play into the definition of the act itself, eugenics. “Did the Jewish people commit extreme acts deserving of their fate? No.” I am sure that was what Hitler said while he was propagandizing against them and killing them. The death penalty is a debate for another time, but I also believe this to be immoral as well. And yet you do not. If we were both given morals from the same god (whiter I believed or not) wouldn’t I find capital punishment as moral as you do? I showed how the two “cities” could be considered nations. I even gave a solid definition and rational that shows the definition fits the situation. How is the definition of nation NOT fitting? What is not true about Gomorrah being a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history? However, let’s forget that part for a second, so you are saying that it was moral for god to destroy everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah? How can the intentional mass murder of anyone, for anything, anywhere, at any time, by any being (supernatural or not) be moral, how can any of that be right? The morality of anyone who says it is forgivable to mass murder must be questioned. The laws of the universe are simple, it’s called god! Are you really arguing that the universe is as simple as the things you can touch and feel in your living room? “…space is possible to be known and then becoming less complex, like my living room.” Surely this was a joke? That would be like saying simply because you know calculus that a calculus problem is not complex. Muddy waters of logic As for the Principle of Sufficient Reason, did you not look at my sources at all? I will try to explain quickly, for every entity X, if X exists, then there’s an explanation for why X exists. For the entity we call energy, if the entity exists, there is a reason why. In the case of energy it is because of the first law of Thermo Dynamics, it cannot be destroyed or created is the reason. Principle of Sufficient Reason, says nothing about creation, only reason for existence. Energy, by the way, is a measurement, like height. Height doesn’t exist it describes something that does. Energy, the measurement/ description does not exist, but the “something” it describes does. How to write a fallacy: As for the big bang, you make the fallacy that I warned you against, labeling ignorance god. I admit, we do not know the initial cause, or at least there isn’t a theory that I see as plausible yet to explain it. However, simply because you do not know the answer does not imply a supernatural being did it, argument from ignorance fallacy. You even admit to this fallacy here: “… energy and matter did not come from nothing (did you even look at Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?) but a cause outside our physical understanding which is neither limited by matter nor time. This cause has all the properties we give God.” And that ladies and gentlemen is a fallacy. If it is a fallacy to believe in god that by logical deduction means that atheism is more reasonable. What is science? Simply put, here is and idea lets prove it wrong! "Soup" theory, Eigen's hypothesis, Fox's experiments, Deep sea vent hypothesis, Coenzyme world, RNA world, Lipid World etc… As you can see, if something in science does not fill in all the blanks and all the questions, science does not simply give up. Scientists work on other ideas, put pieces of one to another and test, and continue that. We are still doing that! Again, to think that god is the answer is a fallacy. Do you understand logic? “Even if God does not exist that does not leave atheism as more reasonable.” So believe in something (god) that does not exist is more reasonable that the belief that nothing ever existed in the first place? ”Even if god does not exist,” which means he never existed (since the part of the definition of god is eternal), then believing that he never existed in the first place is not more reasonable than an imaginary friend? How would you logically come up with reason supporting something that in fact does not exist that, and still be more reasonable than the logic of: I do not observe, there is no record, no evidence and I cannot measure the existence of (god, fairies, flying carpets, talking fish, magic wands) so they must not exist? Emotions ≠ morality Any example I post here will be anecdotal so I will refrain and simply say read the books, there is an evolution of morality. “Con ignores my comment about people having morality regardless if they know God or not.” “I did not need a god to show me how to see your belief as immoral.” & “If god can commit an act we deem as immoral today, would that not be an example our own ability to create a moral framework for ourselves? If we can conjure this ability within us, what need do we have of god to deliver it?” I will ask again, if god, any god, can commit an act I see as immoral, this shows that I do not need that god to give me morality. I see any god who created man without the intellect to understand his will as an immoral act of creation; they did not make us perfectly capable of understanding them. I see that as a flaw in our creation and to make us with a flaw I see is immoral. I also see making humanity so that we can die as a flaw, another immoral imperfection “cooked” into us. Your conclusions… I am sorry to hear that “I have shown our minds can reveal God.” Nope where did you prove this? You have just shown that your mind cannot get around the idea that god doesn’t exist. ”I have shown that a mind is the most likely reason the universe and its complex nature, exist.” Nope, you just don’t know enough about the creation and the existence so you call it god, you admitted that. “Con did not offer anything to defend atheism.” I did, several times, and even gave recommended reading. Morality has evolved and in some ways is embedded into our genetics. Most people have the moral belief that killing is wrong. You think it’s because god told you not to. However, if you examine the purpose of life is to beget more life, we have children to pass on our traits. Killing people is contrary to that instinctual desire to reproduce, and that is where the morality against murder came from. This is really simplified, but if you read some of my citations you may understand better. Not everyone has the same morals, just like not everyone has the same traits. Obviously personal experience also plays into our individual moral framework. “Con has not shown any moral base for atheism.” Again, I am an atheist, I think that you only not killing babies are morally wrong only because god said so is and immoral belief. I have morals, I have no god and if I did then I would hold the same moral believe as you and would not consider that belief immoral. I ran out of characters.