Belief in god is rational.

My opponent makes some good points and I shall do my best to rebut them. My opponent states that he does not see it any more rational to believe in the existence of atoms than god, given that I have not seen an atom directly, and the disputes over the atom. Now I shall have to concede to my opponent that I have not seen an atom and I do rely on accounts in this regards, however if we really wanted to, my opponent and I could go to a research institute, use the STM and see an atom. The same is not true for god, I can pray all I want and not see god. Also a consensus has been reached and all scientist agree that the atom exists. The same can not be said for god. The fact that a dispute has taken place over a claim says nothing about the rationality of the claim. On the reliability of accounts. We must ask ourselves what is more likely? That the characters actually saw god or the devil, or that they didn't. I think it is more likely they didn't. The evidence for atoms and the evidence that these figures saw god or the devil are not the same. At this moment in time, as I have mentioned before, we can see an atom with an STM, but even if we couldn't, the math still checks out. The evidence for observations of the devil or god is that someone wrote them down. Writing something down does not make it true, as my opponent would agree. I highly doubt my opponent would accept the written claims of Joseph Smith. In history we don't believe something just, because it's written. My father used a similar argument not too long ago. He said "how can I know that George Washington had a mother? " Well that claim is consistent with everything I know about the universe, and there is not reason for me not to believe Washington had a mother. With the claim of one seeing god or the devil, it is different. The claim that George Washington had a mother is not a huge claim and consequently does not require much evidence. I would also say that the claim that atoms exist is not a huge one. Also my opponent did not say anything about my logical argument about atoms. The claim that one saw god or the devil or was raised from the dead or was born of a virgin requires a bit more evidence than writing. I'm not sure if my opponent's rewording of the argument is applicable to god. Time came into existence when the universe did, and thus the start of the universe is the start of the timeline. To input god into the sequence would mean that god is not eternal,and comes into being with the universe. My opponent states:" just because there is no evidence that no atom whatsoever exists, does not make the belief that one is rational. " This a real brain teaser, with the double negatives and all. My response is that there is evidence for atoms, and consequently I don't understand his point. Next my opponent states that my claim that god is omni-benevolent is a " fallacious claim". My opponent is actually the only theist I have ever encountered who has said that. I checked out a source and omni-benevolence is certainly implied, and is also implied from the holy books. I also would like my opponent to adrress the notion that god is required to love us, but not required to be good. And yes I would like you to expand on Stalin, not because I disagree with you, but because I'm sure it will be insightful. . http://www.theopedia.com...'s_known_attributes I would disagree with my opponent when he states "gods are observed" , and when he states that they come into existence with "no cause". I've never heard of gods being observed and I would like him to explain. Also the view that god came into existence with no cause is interesting too, and I would also like him to expand on this. The implication is that god is not eternal, given he came into existence. It is also generally held that god is cause of himself, or a necessary being, and my opponent's view contradicts this, Also I would like him to expand on the part about multiple realities, which I find fascinating. From my understanding particles do pop into other realities when they pop out of existence in our reality, but they not longer exist in our reality. I fail to see how god can leave our reality and not cease to exist in our reality. Finally, on my opponents final analogy. The something inside of the body is not omnipresent, therefor its spatial parameters and the website's spatial parameters don't over lap. Also I'm not completely conscious of what my computer or the website experiences .