Debate: Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
Side: False

I gave you the research about the Guadalupe. You never replied back.You know what that means, right?It means i am very busy and didnt have time to get to something ive already looked at? Or that since then your response has been pushed down and off my list of recent arguments and i can no longer locate it? Just a few thoughts. Ill say the same thing i said then: so what? What is the relevance of a surprisingly resiliant piece of cloth (that they dont allow any real scientists to test in a lab)? That isnt proof of god. The Chruch and the State was divided for a reason. And so goes for Science and Religion.It is not a good idea to use it on other territoriesSo why do you keep arguing that religious ideas are 50/50 with scientific ones?i can easily return it back as "Until you confirmed that there is nothing after death, God exists"No you actually cant because you havent proven that god to exist. Youre the one with the positive claim that a god exists. It isnt our job to then prove that theres nothing after death , its your job to prove there is something.The accurate sentance should read as such, "Until you prove that god exists, and an afterlife exists, then it will stand that nothing happens after death" (Not mentioning the fact that every single brain function that maintains one's thoughts, memories, and personality cease at the moment of death so theres no reason to think that anything else happens).Consider me as a student who thirst for wisdom. I desire you to enlighten meThen take what i say to heart instead of throwing the same responses back at me. Under this logic, I question your definition of "Supernatural"1) there is only 1 logic. Not this logic or that, or yours or mine. only logic2): Webster Meriam dictionary.com:Supernatural- 1. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of natureThe most accurate definition in the context of this debate would probably be the second, but one applies when were talking about the supernatural being a God.Can you prove that it is a natural and normal thing for living creatures to exist from nonliving things that was created out of nothingAbiogenesis theory is what youre looking for. Science cant declare fact, but we have good evidence for it. And even if we didnt it would still be accepted before the supernatural assumptions and hypothesis of religion. And at the same time, I ask again, what makes you think that the existance of a divine being is dependent on his ability to defy physicsBecause thats what makes him supernatural. He is commonly defined as being outside of space and time. That isnt natural. so it must be supernatural. if he isnt supernatural then theres no reason to call him god. Thats like a pantheistic outlook. So if we discover something natural behind the big bang or if we find out that something else caused the expansion of the universe then your argument is that it should be called god? well you can call it whatever you want i guess but if its natural it isnt a god