Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

I did, with Esqualax (whatever his name is). But ok, I will pass the hot potato to you, because it is clear that he couldn't handle it.

Couldn't handle it? I felt- and feel- no compunction to defend infinity, as I was never arguing for infinity. The fact that you fail to grasp even the rudimentary tenets of my position, after being outright told numerous times what they are, speaks volumes about either your ability to understand my argument, or your interest in honestly reflecting it beyond how it can be used to leverage your pre-scripted talking points.

Logically absurd concepts are untrue. If you don't know that, then maybe I am wasting my time talking to you. I can talk to people that don't understand the fact that something that is logically absurd cannot "happen".

Ever heard of the double slit experiment? Where light behaves as both a wave and a particle, violating the law of non contradiction? It's logically absurd, but it does happen.

Well, Charles Manson was asked do he regret anything that he did. And his reply was "No, I wish I had done more."

And you're holding up Charles Manson as a prime example of a person whose mental faculties and moral compass are working perfectly?

So right and wrong is based on what society thinks? So if the society allowed it, then that would make it right?

That's not even what Mister A said, now. He said that a rape-permitting society is objectively worse, and it is, from a qualitative standpoint. We're human beings, we survive by forming social groups and cooperating, and rape violates that survival mechanism, making it immoral. Moral systems must always involve the well being of sapient individuals, because if they didn't, there would be no assurance of moral actors, and hence no morality at all.

... I know you probably don't understand any of that, but that's okay. You're driven to not understand it for ideological reasons, so I don't feel too badly about not writing up a whole book on situational ethics in response. You can look it up if you like, it's a very interesting subject, but I'm not holding my breath.

The infinity problem is independent of whatever universe you want to posit.

Not if the universe I posit is neither infinite nor finite. What reason do you have for believing there are only two causal states that a universe can be in, especially when I just provided you with a third valid option, in the cyclical universe, where two or more finite spans of time go around in a cycle.

Now that your dichotomy has been shown to be false, it's time to let go of it.