This is an intellectual exercise and I have no vested interest in converting atheists into believers (unless there is some CPA offered involved, lol).
For the sake of clarity, please don't answer with any religious arguments that aren't grounded in the laws of logic, rationality, math or science....
Preface:
(i) I define god=man's creator, the definition given by the dictionary.
(ii) I define an atheist using common, everyday language, i.e. someone who does not believe man was created by "god" (I don't want to get wrapped up in the technical definition of atheism)
Further I state that:
·PREMISE [A]: Everything that man has observed in the natural world has a proven creator
(the scientific can proves this)
·PREMISE [B] : Man has always observed himself in the natural world
(the scientific method can prove)
·PREMISE [C]: Therefore, man must have a creator.
This conclusion is based on the transitive law of math which states that if a=b and b=c then a=c.
To disprove [C] you
must scientifically disprove either [A] or [b]….or [A] AND
Again above is based on the Transitive law of match and logic and Aristotle's concept of Syllogism
- transitive law -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Syllogism/transitive-law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[b]
IF you cannot disprove either [A] or [b] or [A] + and still do not believe [C], by the laws of math and logic, your belief is neither rational nor logical.
If you find this curious, please direct your agreement or objections towards the premises and NOT the framework for the argument as the Transitive law of logic/math is accepted as scientific fact.