Being atheist is an illogical move

Thank you for accepting this; as this is a one round debate I will try to include all I can and hope to address the points I predict you shall make. First off I would like to clarify this debate in regard to your comment "Rarely do atheists throw out the possibility that there is a god. .. Are you wanting to debate that it is logical to believe that there is? How can you do this without debating the logic of the belief? " By definition: Atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God. And no I am not looking to debate that it is logical to believe that there is a God; I am wanting to debate that it is illogical to throw the possibility that there is a God out. But if you feel that it will increase your argument you are more than welcome to use that in part of your debate sir. When I had this epiphany a few months back I used to call all my Atheist friends Agnostics, jokingly stating: "I know you are smarter than that; nothing is impossible, so throwing the possible off the table is just illogical. " Before I start to argue my side I'd just like to quote something, that may or may not resonate with some of our readers: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. " Of course this brings up the argument, and pseudo-religion, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his church. This of course is arguing that because you can not prove that a supreme deity exists that it does not exist, or at the very least he should not be brought into intelligent debate. This argument is of course valid and arguing against the FSM would take a whole 8,000 characters in itself. So in harm to my argument, I will not debate against the FSM in this thread. Instead I will start at looking at some reasons that some have objected against the teachings of a Supreme Being. One is the age old debate of science versus religion. I remember arguing with a friend-of-a-friend that was atheist because he said that the church was anti-science. Of course this is true if you go to the conservative right of the church, but in more mainstream religious sects this is entirely false. The Catholic Church and the Church of England, to name two big examples, both believe in the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. Another religious leader accepting science is the Dali Lama; he is quoted saying "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. " In regard to the argument that the Catholic Church and the Church of England are contradicting themselves by accepting these scientific beliefs, I only am going to say that this is false and is for another debate. The Bible is open for different translations and the creation of the universe and life is no different. Next I will look at the creation of the universe in a logical stand-point arguing that throwing God off the table is a sure sign of an illogical person. I paraphrase Einstein to open my next statement: There was nothing before the Big Bang. Nothing. Not a fleck of dust, not a single atom. Science dictates as a common rule (or law): something can not be created out of nothing. We have narrowed down the Higgs Boson, or the God atom, that is critical in creating the universe but science is yet to tell us how it got there. Of course you can believe in the multiverse theory, but that still begs into question what or who created the first universe. This is where I begun my thinking many months ago on the topic and I came to this conclusion that still drives me: something can not come from nothing; therefore until science develops further, if it can ever get to that point (which despite my pragmatistic philosophy I doubt it will), throwing God off the table is very illogical. I'd also like to use an appeal to authority argument so that I can be fully encompassing: First I will start with a quote from Einstein. Einstein disassociated himself from the label of atheist arguing that it was "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. " Einstein much preferred the title of agnostic. The smartest man in the world today, whose IQ can not even be measured on the charts we have, believes he can mathematically prove Gods existence. And a majority of the top 10, "highest IQ" members in the world believe there is a God. Does this mean anything? Probably not, but I thought it was worth mentioning nonetheless. Citing all this would be a nightmare: just Google top 10 smartest people in the world and then go through and Google Religious beliefs of _______: all 10 times and you will get a majority. I lost what was going to be my closing statement in my head as I did research on the top 10 and their views on religion, but I think my point has been made well enough so I will end with a quote: "The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. "