Atheism is a sound position

"See how shaken he got? He knows he didn't prove atheism accurate(otherwise he would be an atheist). He knows he cannot do it so he got mad LOL."1. Ain't even mad bro.2. See how shaken he got? He knew he didn't actually have anything of substance to refute what I'm saying so he goes for the long-shot of trying to make me look incompetent and scared. Rookie mistake."Well is atheism the disbelieving in the God of the bible or all gods? Its all gods."Jeeze, sorry for trying to make the debate more specific, and thus more educational and fair for both sides. Sue me. But secondly, wouldn't you RATHER focus down to just Christianity? I mean, you're supposedly a Christian. It should be something you know plenty about, and should be able to do a helluva lot better job then you have been so far. Might even not completely embarrass yourself."No since God can do it both at the same time while a positive outweighs a negative it would mean God can both limit his power and be all powerful without limiting anything."Let me first say that I can say for everyone else reading this debate that no one knows what the f*ck you're talking about. With that being said, let's go to refuting this nonsense.1. Positives outweighing negatives has literally no link and no impact to God being all-powerful or not. Not even remotely the same topic.2. No reason given for WHY positives outweigh negatives. This means we have no reason to accept his bland assertion. 3. TURN: Negative actually outweigh positives on terms of scope and magnitude. People take far more notice of negative actions and events than positives. Evidence of this is the news, how much more popular negative news like murders and robberies. Thus, it outweighs on scope. It outweighs on magnitude as more negatives things are happening in the world than positive things. It also outweighs on magnitude since thne positive things, like helping an old lady across the street, hardly have the same impact on society as something like a murder or mass shooting spree. This means that the only thing slightly close to a warrant for his arguments is refuted. God cannot, under the pro's arguments, be all powerful and not all powerful at the same time. This means he still bites into the loop of the paradox of the stone, and thus cannot be all powerful, and thus not exist. This means that Atheism is, in fact, a sound, and correct, position to take. "You say its illogical for God to be all powerful and not at the same time (which is not my argument.. But you want to argue that a all powerful being cannot do something which is illogical so If god is all powerful he can limit his power without limiting his power."1. I understand this wasn't your argument. It was my refutation. Thank you for finally acquiring your first brain cell. 2. You don't actually refute my argument, only restate yours. So I'll restate mine: it is entirely illogical to believe a God can be all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time. I cannot be both cold and hot at the same time, as they are polar opposites and cannot exist in the same being or entity. As such, the same thing applies with both being all-powerful and not all-powerful. "No this assumes God is not all powerful so cannot exist in 1 realm."False. Your argument is that God can be all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time. I've already disproven multiple times over how it cannot exist in the same entity. This leaves the only other way for this to be true: multiple time-spaces/realms of existence. This means that we still link into my arguments, which disprove it on THAT front as well. So there is, literally, no time or space where God could exist. This means that atheism is true, and is thus a viable position. "God made physics not the other way around. If you want to say God needs to do something illogical to limit his power, then using the same math he can without it being a limitation to Him."Okay, sorry, have to take away your brain cell. This was dumber than the stereotypical fat nerd asking out the stereotypical hot cheerleader to prom. 1. Never said physics made God. Nothing made God, as he does not exist. Something can't have made something that doesn't exist.2. The 'math' you're using is entirely nonsensical. You're trying to add one plus one and getting Batman."He says God needs to be so all powerful that he limit his power, then he says God cannot do it."I would take away another brain cell for this golden piece of idiocy, but sadly you have none left to take :(If you didn't get the hint, that actually WASN'T what I said. My argument was that God cannot possibly limit his power, as that would disprove his existence. Since God is, by nature, all-powerful, if God was not all-powerful, it would contradict the very nature of him being God, and thus would disprove his existence. "Because without evil our good and objective provable standard would be incomplete."Then how can we say that God is all-loving? Why would he give us a standard that HAD to have the suffering of others to allow it to work? Moreover, this also denies the possibility of having an all-powerful, all-loving God because if God were both, he would want and be able to provide us with a metric that did not have to have suffering in order to function. The fact that he has yet to do so (since suffering still exists) proves this. This, for the gazillionth time, proves that God cannot exist."But of course without the concept of evil the concept of suffering wouldn't exist and vis versa."1. There's literally no warrant for this argument.2. Evil doesn't have to exist for us to know that being evil is bad. Again, Hitler doesn't have to be alive for us to know that ethnic cleansing is a bad thing to do."There's no argument to say that if God were all knowing he would know the best way to provide the standard."Negative two brain cells now. You're on a roll. Yes, there is an argument that says if God is ALL-KNOWING then he would KNOW THE BEST WAY to provide the standard. That's, y'know, kind of in the nature of all-knowing..."Without evil it would mean good is no more than a new unimaginable color."TURN: With evil gone, we would finally truly be able to see what pure goodness actually looks like since good is merely the absense of evil, much like cold is the absense of heat. Taking away evil produces the ultimate good. This solves back for my opponent's argument of without evil, we wouldn't have a concept of God. "No because if 1 theism is false it would mean an unknown theism could be true. We don't default to atheism."So you got on my case for being too specific earlier...now you get on my case for being too broad...what CAN I do? And yes, we do default to Atheism for the unrefuted reasons I've provided. "1. No they are very different."In no way are they different. "2. Why ought we do good?"Because it's the most societally beneficial way of acting that we know of. "3. But without a evil a good wouldn't be in any type of morality system"Refer back to my argument about without evil, we can truly understand what good is. "a) A lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This isnt does god exist debate its is atheism a sound position."Refer back to my third argument about how extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, an argument you have yet to successfully refute.") If God made everything that means physics. So your argument fails"That's like saying because governments make the laws, they are not bound by the laws. If anything, it would make God MORE bound by the laws than we are because HE MADE THEM. So if there's a single discrepency (i.e. Third Law of Thermodynamics), then his entire existence is refuted.Short of characters. I'm easily proving how God cannot possibly exist, which makes atheism a confirmed, and thusly sound position. The resolution is easily affirmed.