Standards of Logic

I really wish I had more baggage to debate this question, but I will keep trying to give my best. 1."God created mankind to be rational beings. We can trust logic completely. Logic is absolute, and morals are objective." Logic falls into two general fields, deductive and inductive logic. Deductive logic is used to discover self-evident truths. For example: 1. All flowers are living beings. 2. The rose is a flower. 3. therefore the rose is a living being. In deductive logic, syllogisms go from the general to the specific. However, they are all contained systems. For instance, our definition of "flower" is that it is a living being. Therefore it's just taking general truths and applying them to the specific. The other form of logic is called inductive logic. Inductive logic goes from the specific to general and often contains new information in the conclusion, is predictive, and has a margin for error. An example of inductive logic would be: 1. I've waken up every time after I fell asleep; 2. I'm feeling the same as the other times; 3. I will wake up after this night of sleep; The scientific method is an example. When we gather evidence we take specific examples of a certain thing. After collecting and interpreting this evidence we can make a general rule about this thing. However, we may still be wrong in our general rule because we're moving from the specific to the general. In conclusion, logic is very far from being absolute, because it doesn't give you access to absolute knowledge or whatsoever. And human reasoning is very far from being perfect too. You have your life experiences, emotions, genetics... lots of factors that influence your way of thinking. It just can't be perfect. And what you're claiming is not even logically correct, according to our own standards of logic. I will try to put it through syllogisms to explain myself: 1. God exists and made humans perfect, in his image. 2. Humans are perfect and their reasoning is perfect. 3. Humans can claim that God exists through their reasoning. Unfortunately, humans' reasoning is not perfect according to their own reasoning. Which I believe that immediately disproves your claims. Regarding to morals being objective, this is not true either, at least at an human level. Moral standards change from culture to culture, and from people to people. Even between people with the same religion beliefs, you find significant levels of discrepancy between their morals and their beliefs of right and wrong. I believe that morals stand mainly on "treat others as you would want them to treat you", that's why they are so subjective. In conclusion. Atheists are just trying to have some sense in their own relativism and subjective reality, they are not trying to claim the absolute nonexistence of God, they just believe in it for the lack of evidences to prove them the opposite in their reality, but they won't never be able to be completely sure of it. While theists can be sure that God exists, not because they can prove it through reasoning and logic, but because they can feel it, in a way that completely transcends any kind of thinking or logic. I really appreciate your availability to try to explain your point. I'm sorry that we didn't manage to reach an agreement on this, but thank you!