All Humans Have Faith In Something (Atheists, Theists and Everyone Else)

I'll respond to my opponent's arguments as they appear in the round, consisting of italicized sections, then underlined sections within the italicized sections for easier reading.Greater Definition:Oh, sorry about that. I'm just normally used to saying greater power rather than greater truth, but Greater Truth is definately what we're debating over. Sorry for any misconceptions. I'd also like to say that I don't find anything my opponent brought up rude or insulting.Origin of Everything:Hasty Generalization Fallacy: My opponent did indeed commit this by assuming that one theory some Atheists believe in shows that all Atheists believe in something. His goal in the round is to prove that I believe in a greater truth (he never refuted this), and as I don't hold belief in any theory as to how the universe was created, he has not fulfilled his Burden of Proof. My opponent states that not holding faith in how the Universe was created shows that I hold faith that it doesn't matter. However, not only is this a false statement (I never stated I didn't care, nor do I hold faith in this fact, I simply state that I accept the fact that I may not know in my lifetime), he is misunderstanding the concept of faith. Lacking faith is not the same as having faith by any means due to the definition of the word, and so his arguments in how I view the creation of the universe or my lack of faith in God are irrelevant. Therefore, his statement that " And if they claim ignorance, I claim that is perhaps the greatest step of faith one can make." is completely illogical as this is not an act of faith, it's a lack of it.Creationism V Evolutionism:My opponent states "If I ask enough questions and we get to the fundamental building block of 'your' atheistic belief system, we may arrive at the issue of creationism. Your answer is 'I don't know how the universe started' therefore I say your belief in co-existing enzymes, the big bang, or whatever theory you hope to claim, is based in faith without tangible proof. A great truth you accept as true without proof" However, this statement is fundamentally flawed due to two points.1. Lack of Faith: My opponent states that because I admit I don't know how the universe was created, then everything else I know is based on faith. 1a.) My unknowing of the universe is, as I stated earlier, a lack of faith. In order to hold faith in an issue about it, I would first have to believe in an issue about it. As I don't believe in any theories, I do not hold faith in any theories.1b.) I know the fact that I don't hold faith in any theories, but that's not an issue of faith, that's a simple fact based on evidence. Check out the definition of faith, which I've restated repeatedly throughout the round.2. Evolutionism is based on evidence: The second problem that arises from my opponent's argument is that faith is belief in something without logical or evidencial proof. Because there is actual materialistic proof behind evolution (which is what I believe in as far as how humans got here), my argument is not based on faith and so I don't believe in it based on faith [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].Lack of Faith:My opponent states "He states 'he cannot prove it' (faith that it doesn't matter or pertain to him) and will likely never know the answer. He basically says 'He can't prove the origin, so he doesn't know how it happened, but he believes it did anyway." That is the purest definition of faith." Once again, there are two reasons why this is wrong.1.) Misinterperetation. My opponent states that I have "faith that it doesn't matter or pertain to [me]", however this is false. I know that how the universe came into existence is very important, and I know that it pertains to me simply because I live in the universe. What I actually said was "I simply realize that I can't prove it, will likely never know the answer in my lifetime, and I move on." nothing in that sentence says that I don't care, it simply shows that I know I cannot prove it.2.) Belief in the Universe. My opponent makes a quite clever relation between how I don't know how the universe came into existence to how people don't know how God came into existence and simply have faith, but he's forgetting one simple fact. I exist. I know exist, I have materialistic evidence of this fact. I also know that if i exist, then I must exist in something, there is also materialistic evidence of this fact. I don't mean to turn this into an existential debate, but I know that the unvierse exists simply because we have evidence all around us, and according to the accepted definition of faith, that means I don't hold it due to faith.Munchausen Trilemma:"Myopponent's flaw in his interpretation of the Trilemma is, "the Munchausen Trilemma argument states that you cannot be 100% certain that anything is proven" That isn't what the Trilemma states. It states that you cannot be AT ALL certain of anything. All comes back to proof. I am not disputing the existence of evidence or proofs in the process of the Trilemma, but when you arrive at the root question of 'why is it true' the answer will be 'Because it is.' A faith-based statement." The flaw in this is because, as I stated in the last round and went unrefuted, unless my opponent brings up a specific instance where this is actually correct, we can't simply assume it. Never in the round has my opponent proven that I explain something by saying "because it does", and so we cannot assume this theory is correct. If anything, we have directly proven it wrong. As my opponent has not shown any instance as to why this theory is correct, it has been proven wrong due to failure to uphold its Burden of Proof and cannot be held in the round.Other Truths:"My opponent is engaging in semantics. An atheist does not 'believe god exists.' Let's reword the statement as "If the Big Bang Theory was true, we will see evidence of its truth. There is evidence of its truth, so it is true." In that case it makes the same point, that atheists put faith in the higher concept of logic."1.) It's true that I'm enganging in semantics due to the definition of the word (I'm well aware of the irony), but that's because what my opponent is talking about IS NOT FAITH. Therefore, I was not commiting what is the commonly known semantical argument (one that is over-trivialized and under-important), but rather showing how my opponent is arguing over something that in no way proves faith.2.) This is simply going back to my point which goes unrefuted, we have evidence that correct logic leads to the right answer. This evidence proves that something that is logical is likely to be true. Therefore, we are not placing faith in logic.The unquoted points my opponent makes in that paragraph are either refuted in the above point "2.)" or in the refutation of the Munchausen trilemma."Unfortunately my opponent is not the judge on what is 'an accurate argument.' I find it a very relevant debate strategy."It doesnt' matter what you find it, it is still unaccurate (refer to my arguments against the Munchausen Trilemma for arguments against over-trivializing everything to faith, I'm running out of characters :P)" His axiom is that truth is the correct conclusion. Because it is correct. Why? Because it is. (Faith.)"This goes back to my earlier arguments. I don't believe in logic simply because it's logic, but because logic has been proven to be true empiracally.My opponent has not once proven that I hold belief in something. This directly disproves the fact that "all" humans hold faith in something, and so my opponent has lost the debate. Vote Con :)Works Cited:1.)http://shop.skeptic.com...2.) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...3.) http://teachthemscience.org...4.) http://www.talkorigins.org...5.) http://www.nyu.edu...