Atheism is not logical

Hello..
I am the con in this debate, or the athiest.
If you want to debate, you can "start your own debate", or are you interested in a debate with me?

I didn't read the whole discussion but I don't think that the pro did a so good job in this debate, the atheist also didn't make lot of sense imo. It's also my first time here, where can I continue this debate as a pro believer ?

“ I provided evidences to you: the complexity of this earth and human predisposition.”

You literally did not provide a single bit of evidence this *entire* debate dude. You don’t know what the word evidence means.

I’ll show you some more example of evidence. Claim: The crust on earth is in continuous motion. Evidence: the mid Atlantic ridge is a ridge where new crust is being made and pushed away. The new crust is then pushed away from the ridge. Which pushes older crust away into subduction zones where it is pushed back to the lower crust it mantle, melted, recycled. Glacial scarring from a singular ice sheet that left scarring in South America, Australia, Africa, and Antarctica. Did an ice sheet stretch across the oceans and curve wildly to do that? No, it happened because those continents used to be a single land mass called Gondwana.

That is evidence dude. Not ‘you don’t believe in god because he’s invisible, but air is invisible too, therefor god exists.’ That is nonsense man.

Holy mother of god this debate was so difficult to read. Thinking mind implemented more logical fallacies per sentence than just about anyone I’ve seen aside from maybe Karl Marx.

Let’s start simple, you don’t get to say things like ‘the proof for Y is X’ then provide literally 0 evidence for X being proof for anything. A question is not evidence, especially when the question isn’t actually a question, but a virtue signal. It’s a rhetorical, nonsensical question, ‘how can you think man-made things have a creator but greater things don’t.’ What exactly are these ‘greater’ things and what makes them ‘greater’ than human made objects? Do you think a salamander with no eyes is ‘greater’ than the device you are currently using (the most powerful information accessing device the world has ever seen) to argue with people on the internet? If you do, that’s fine, but in what way? And why does that increased ‘greatness’ prove the existence of a god? To go a step further, let’s assume you absolutely 100% prove there is a god, you have to then find proof that this god is what you think it is. You have to prove it is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all forgiving, a blue elephant, or whatever description of god your religion provides.

We can back up though, because I’m trying to address flaws in ways of thinking, not flaws with specific arguments.

You make the same argument over and over again ‘the complexity proves…’ how does the complexity prove it? You don’t to get to ask a question as evidence. You don’t get to criticize something else as evidence. That’s similar to arguments from incredulity or personal incredulity. ‘I don’t accept this answer, therefor god.’ ‘I can’t answer this question, therefor god.’ ‘You can’t explain this or answer this question, therefor god.’ That isn’t evidence, but it does have a name. ‘Negative evidence’

You need positive evidence. Positive evidence is direct proof. It doesn’t rely on criticizing something, dismissing questions, nothing, it is just direct proof. I’ll give you a few perfect examples. Claim: Parkinson’s disease is caused by the destruction of the dopamine system. Positive evidence (proof): in patients with Parkinson’s disease, brain scans show the death and destruction of dopaminergic neurons. (This next part is important) there is no other outcome of dopaminergic neuron death besides Parkinson’s disease. There is no other possible cause of Parkinson’s disease. Where there is destruction of the dopamine system, there is Parkinson’s and vice versa.

Example 2: Claim: MDMA causes its effects by causing a sudden wave of serotonin, called a serotonin dump. Positive Evidence: brain scans show a massive flood of serotonin after MDMA is ingested. In depth brain studies done on rats and mice show a flood of serotonin after MDMA ingestion. Any animal that has a serotonin system experiences the same pharmacodynamic and potentially even psycho-social effects. Why? Because MDMA causes a serotonin dump. That is what proof and evidence looks like man.

Another logical fallacy, false argument , false equivalence, and strawman. You claim atheists don’t believe in god because they can’t see him. That is simply not true, not a single atheist has ever made that a core of their belief system. Just because you cannot formulate an argument more complex than that, doesn’t mean everyone else struggles as well. You then say that intellect is invisible and therefor atheists should deny that if they want to remain philosophically consistent.

First and foremost, you’re now arguing with no one, no one is an atheist because they can’t see god. (No one is obviously an exaggeration but the point should be clear) second, since you made this argument up in your head (no one said it besides you) you push the argument over like a strawman and pretend that you doing that is evidence of your claim. Feel free to read my earlier explanation of what proof and evidence looks like, it has nothing to do with proving something else wrong, it has everything to do with just proving the claim.

Third, you say intellect is invisible. It isn’t invisible, at all lol, we can see intellect when someone does math, writes a book, draws a picture, makes a watch, invents something, etc etc etc. intellect is not invisible, and even if it were, isn’t evidence for a god existing it’s evidence that people believe intellect exists lmao nothing more.

I suggest enrolling in some college level philosophy courses. You need to learn how to think.