Atheism is a lie.

Thanks Con for your rebuttal. And I apologize for the long wait. But I needed some time to work through the heavy layers of false preconceptions that filter your ability to seek out the truth of the matter. 1. Dictionaries are good sources of reference and give us "definitions" so as to give us a good idea of what the word might ACTUALLY mean, but dictionaries do not define things absolutely. This may be a confusing notion, but imagine a Cat. A dictionary says "feline animal." So if someone who has never seen a Cat, reads a dictionary "definition" of Cat, will Oxford be able to define exactly what a CAT is, so the reader could imagine it in his mind and "KNOW" what a Cat is? Absolutely not. The dictionary gives us a reference idea of the word in question, Cat or God. IT does NOT DEFINE the idea or thing itself. So , if the dictionary cannot accurately define "cat." why would you assume it can accurately define "god?" 2. Now, I am giving Con some credit and I AM ASSUMING that Con knows dictionaries don't give us absolute values for definitions, so as to give us clear notions of what something is and is not. Con further goes on to say (and I paraphrase) " We all know what God you are talking about , its all irrelevant, atheists disbelieve a Sentient God!" So, despite even providing what Oxford means when the dictionary says "god", Con's attempt to Clarify what HE means is evidence that 1. Con does not "know" what God concept Pro is even talking about. 2. Con cannot "know" what God concept Pro is even talking about. 3. Yet Con assumes to know, exactly what God Pro is talking about 4. The concept of God has never been defined so unless I define it first, Con can never disbelieve MY God, Albert's God, or the Christian God on the basis of evidence or lack thereof. One can only assume disbelief on the mere conjecture of likelihood based on personal experience. This is therefore, undeniable ignorance against the claimed God. Whichever that God may be. Each claim requires its own evidence, Each claim being entirely different, and the notion of God being entirely different for each religion as well as each INDIVIDUAL. God CANNOT be defined. TO imagine God comprehensibly is your imagination, indeed. Nothing more. Then if all you have done is imagined God in your mind,, or your idea of God, then how will you justifiably ask for, scrutinize, weigh evidence? Does not all of it rely on...your subjective imagination of whatever you believe to be "God"? Clearly, this is an idea (who ornehat God is) that even theologians disagree on, despite the constant imperialist need for orthodoxy within power structures. However, if my above logic is true, which I am pretty sure it is,, lol, No orthodoxy can provide us with a definitive, comprehensible or KNOWLEDGEABLE defintion of God. Dont ever let an atheist say "your God is imaginary" because in fact, only HIS god can be defined as such. By his own acknowledgement. The logic above only bolster C1P1 of my argument. The attempted obfuscation of the TRUTH, can be readily discerned by my opponents claim that " We are not replacing God with anything,.... " Yet only a few lines down.. he goes on to say "Well a God is simply an idea someone had to explain something" So he says one thing in one paragraph. Yet the very next paragraph determines God "probably" doesn't exist. In the previous paragraph con admits to C1P1 by saying "as we do not know the actual answer yet." So, Con is saying, no one can KNOW if God exists or not, yet...for some odd reason, Con seems to believe he has plenty of reasons to not believe. First Con brings up probabilities. Probabilities are not evidence of anything, but the probability of an event happening or not happening. Since the world and you exist, the probability of there being creation is 100%. it already happened. and we know it happened. HOW it happened... as Con admits.... no one knows. In determining the likelihood of HOW an event occurred, one cannot consider statistical probabilities to provide ANY insight. Because we all know how IMPROBABLE the creation of the universe and life was. I believe its a 1 out of 10 to the 230th power. thats 230 0's behind the 1. thats a 1 out of Gazillion chance that YOU exist. Is Con making the argument that he doesnt exist? Probabilities are a broad spectrum of POSSIBLE outcomes or events. This means...no matter how many different possible events you consider, 5 or 10 or 100000000000000000, ONE possibility out of all those other possibilities will be TRUE. There is always something, rather than nothing. If you say ALL possibilities are wrong, then you deny existence itself. "It is completely wrong to say a decision rules out any likelihoods.We make decisions all the time based on likelihoods, be it crossing the road assuming we won't be hit, to insuring your house even though the world could end tomorrow. " Con asserts a straw man here, as he misunderstands what it is I am saying. If you consider various possibilities, and choose ONE and that is your decision, then FOR CON, all other liklihoods have been eliminated, or in the least placed below the one he chose. when you Cross the road... you decided "you will not be hit" and you crossed the road. Even if other possibilities exist (obviously), the one who crosses the road has DECIDED that other possibilities are less likely to occur (than successfully crossing the road.) In the road crosser's mind, he does not BELIEVE he will be hit. is the point. HE will lookout for RISK or oncoming traffic, but he will move forward with FAITH that he will not be hit. Likewise, Atheism BELIEVES in evolution without God, and they have FAITH that God does not exist. Further... Con goes and creates more confusion and lies. "Science doesn't disprove God," then saying just a few lines down.. " Science contradicts God because science relies on high probabilities and evidence, which comes up short when it comes to God" So science doesn't disprove God,,,yet contradicts God. This sounds like a bunch of nonsense. First of all, as well we BOTH AGREED, God is an undefined creator of the universe and life. God could be anything. Then if science doesnt KNOW how life and matter began..... how is science contradicting God? Isn't science only a tool for finding the beginning of how life and matter began? Then that means science is only a tool for finding that which we call "God." Then how does a tool used to find something..contradict the very thing its looking for?