What is the best argument for an atheist?

[Meow Mix]

Do not assume that most atheists were never Christians. Most of us were. You are not educating people ignorant of Christianity on what Christians believe. And I think it fair to say that other Christians are as aware of their philosophy as you are of yours.

Where I think you go wrong in most of your last post is in your apparent reliance on the assumption that "mind-stuff" can exist independently of a physical brain. Human "mind-stuff", it appears, cannot.

The objects of human mind-stuff can be external, though. I'm not an ontological materialist.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not an ontological materialist.

Pfft - yeah, I've heard that line before.

 

[Meow Mix]

Pfft - yeah, I've heard that line before.

You, sir, will be mud if you keep trifling with me :drool:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You, sir, will be mud if you keep trifling with me :drool:

That's easy - just add water.

 

[Copernicus]

The objects of human mind-stuff can be external, though. I'm not an ontological materialist.

I am trying to decide whether I should try to make sense of these claims. I'm probably not as familiar with the "mind-stuff" literature as you and Debunker are.

 

[Dan4reason]

emphasis added by me

this passage is incomprehensible to those not familiar with this ancient culture don't cha think? how can anyone make sense of this non sense....
why would anyone want to?

I think that people back then had no problem with taking things out on the children for the crimes of their parents so may have had no problem with a kind merciful just God doing this. People back then had a problem with confusing revenge with justice and that is why God is so afflicted.

The whole point of Jesus was that he was also fully human, hence he was able to suffer and experience weakness.

The real mind twister is how someone can be both fully God and fully human...

I like your point but I have to disagree. An omnipotent God can do anything he wants. He can be human, God, vulcan, charcoal, or whatever all at the same time. I think that the whole problem starts when people start assuming that omnipotent beings exist in the first place.

Even if a perfect being was trapped in a human body he would be mentally perfect enough to desire what is rational and not give in to torture. Perfect mental strength and fortitude is something I just sort of assume that God has; according to the myth of course.

It is because God does exist in the pure form of existence and never changes from the substance of existence, men can depend on his eternal essence that never changes.For example science and logic are always science and logic.

The highest forms of knowledge are primal stuff,which is eternal, like logic and science, mathematics, laws of physics, chemistry, etc. These are things that are self evident and do not depend on man but these come from God ;and, the sophisticated use of these eternal tools, which never change, enables man to make great discovers, think strait, and improve the quality of life. Actually the Bible confirms this philosophy for Christians but does nothing for atheist in search for evidence.

The recognition that these tools do exist, that the laws of science are the same throughout the universe,is recognition that God (logos for Greek philosophers and Christians) does exist. God becomes the final premise for all correct reasoning. To reject God means the rational reasoning and logical processes of the mind are interrupted. This is also confirmed by the Bible.

By using the eternal tools, used by man's mind, he sees God as a self evident and that God is (existence). Christians believe that atheist, who do not recognize God as a premise are uninformed in the use of logic and reasoning. Another thread on this forum points out the Bible considers those who do not believe in God as fools. Paul taught that atheist did not like to entertain God in their minds and suffered from delusions sent by God himself (Epistle of Romans).

I bet most atheists were not even aware that Christians had a complicated and complex philosophical position like this, all based on natural theology (reason and logic) and confirmed by reveled theology (Bible). In fact, most Christians are not aware of their own philosophy.
Debunker

You have no basis at all for saying that God is "mind stuff." You also have no basis for saying that ideas and logic are any "higher" than material things. How are you defining "higher" anyway?

I am quite sure that if God made himself not exist that 2 + 2 would still equal 4 and I do not think that there is a man in the sky making sure that logic works. Logic works by itself whether there is God or not. Logic works because in our universe causality works. If there was no causality, logic would either cease to be useful or would become a lot less useful.

Your next problem is that you assume that God's existence is self evident. Usually when something is self-evident it is true by its own definition. I do not see that in the definition of God so that conjecture is fallacious. God is just as much self-evident as Zeus, Thor, unicorns, fairies, and pixy dust.

 

[Meow Mix]

I am trying to decide whether I should try to make sense of these claims. I'm probably not as familiar with the "mind-stuff" literature as you and Debunker are.

Let's start with an easy one like identity. Identity is the state of affairs where something, if it exists, exists as what it is and not as something else. A = A. It leads to two corollaries:

Identity, A = A, something is itself.

Corollary: Excluded middle, A or ¬A, something is either what it is or it's something else.

Corollary: Noncontradiction, ¬(A & ¬A), something can't be itself and something contradictory at the same time and in the same respect.

Now, consider that all humans don't exist -- furthermore, that all consciousness or minds whatsoever don't exist.

Is the universe still there? Yep. Are things in the universe still what they are -- is the earth still the earth, regardless of anyone being able to see it or name it or describe it? Yep.

If identity is still true with no minds to conceive of it then clearly it can't come from minds; it's "out there." But it certainly isn't material, though it is part of material things.

So we have a step further to go: let's consider the nonmateriality of anything.

Say X is the existence of anything material, and let's postulate not-X.

Does ¬X = ¬X? Is the nonexistence of anything material exactly that? If even a tiny bit of material exists then we have X rather than ¬X, so it's obvious that ¬X must be ONLY ¬X.

Yes, identity is still true even without anything material existing. But if identity is true without anything material existing, that implies that identity itself isn't material.

So, here we have something which exists that isn't material and isn't just a thought/concept of a mind: ontological materialism can't be true if this is the case.

 

[Debunker]

What you seem to be saying here is that the collection of all ontologically necessary things "are" God, but this is just a romanticized version of pantheism.

What I am trying to say is that all these ontologically necessary things(maybe called definitions) come from one common source, that being existence. Admittedly you point out a big problem that philosophers have attempted to explain for ages. And that is, to make the Creator or God both transcendental and imminent at the same time. In Christian metaphysics the point at which ontological mind stuff becomes cosmological is the point in time of creation.

yet here I am: an atheist which agrees logic is ontologically necessary. I haven't contradicted myself, so I'm still not understanding exactly what your point is.

And here you are, at the beginning of all things where one must choose between many conflicting things whether you are an atheist or a theist. Did absolute being create the cosmological world by separating into real cosmological things by his ontological way of thinking things into existence? Or, do we want to have a faith, which says something came from nothing? The latter is too big of a jump in logic for me.

Atheist, however, make this jump in logic all the time and think it is a safe assumption. As they say, some atheist do not believe their is a God or an Absolute. Some believe there is only one absolute and that is that there are no absolutes. I am sure you have heard that. So, do you contradict yourself or do you simply refuse to recognize creation? If you do not believe that something can come from nothing, do you not discover that God is the great "I am"? This also is the Bible's take on creation. In Genesis 1, the Bible opens with "in the beginning God created" and in the Gospel of John says the "logos became flesh."

They call it God, I call it "the universe." Likewise in this scenario, you seem to be calling it God, while I just call it "logic."

Considering logos, logic, and pure reasoning,etc., the above statement appears to be an admission with a small semantic nuance. Is a rose a rose called by another name?

For instance, logic is not a creator-being, nor is it omnipotent or omniscient or anything like that. This is further evidence if you ask me that God is not just a collection of ontologically necessary things. It seems they are separate concepts, and it's wholly rational to acknowledge the necessary existence of logic while lacking belief in god(s).

The proposition that God created does not say that God is a collection of eternal things, but if something does not come from nonexistence, then the Creatormust have left us with a collection of eternal truths like logic and science. It seems very rational to say if one believes there is truth in the universe, then there is a God. Also, the fact that the same science and logic on earth works throughout the universe, it is reasonable to assume this speaks to the Omani of God. But clearly God is separated from his creation.

 

[Debunker]

To summarize, I think in order for your position to be justified you would need to demonstrate a few things:

1) Why is the existence of logic, mathematics, reason, etc. congruent with the existence of God without simply defining God as those things?

2) How do you know those things are aspects of God?

Essentially, I'm just asking the basic epistemic stuff: what do you know, and how do you know it?

My last oost seems to anserwer demands since it explains god as a creator and not a collection of qualities. How do I know this? Idefine what God is and and deduce from that definition what god did to create.My source of knowledge comes from induction and deductions in usscience and observation.In my reasoning, I keep the most basic premises of my logic the same.

 

[Debunker]

Do not assume that most atheists were never Christians. Most of us were. You are not educating people ignorant of Christianity on what Christians believe. And I think it fair to say that other Christians are as aware of their philosophy as you are of yours.

Where I think you go wrong in most of your last post is in your apparent reliance on the assumption that "mind-stuff" can exist independently of a physical brain. Human "mind-stuff", it appears, cannot.

It is only my opinion but I think it is correct that most Christians base their beliefs on the revealed word of God and not on natural theology. there is n wrong with that approach but it is just the way it is.

 

[Debunker]

.

Why do you think theism should offer anymore reason for its faith system than the atheist belief system? We are not required to explain anything unless we want to, just like you. But, why are we here? To share our ideas, that's why. Fairness is not we tell all and you say nothing.

Contrary to the opinion of people who know almost nothing about atheism; not all atheists do say that God does not exist. This would be comparable to saying that alternate universes don't exist. There is no solid disproof of alternate universes and no justification to be sure that they don't exist. Most atheists actually claim that they simply have a lack of belief in God.

What you are saying here is that you have nothing to say. That is fine. Then say nothing.

to argue that there is no justifiable reason to believe in him and we certainly do not need evidence that God doesn't exist in order to argue that there is no justifiable reason to believe in him.

If this is so, you should never criticize a Christian for walking in blind faith since that is how you live, with no reasoning.It is you who says: "You see, either you believe in God or you don't it is that simple and the only thing in between is confusion and indecision."
Next you say:

I personally have some arguments that provide evidence against the Judeo-Christian God of the bible so I do not simply rely on a lack of evidence on the part of Christians as an argument against them. I will give you one.

Your arguments are simple and need no response. You admit you have no standards upon which to base your world view. You simply do not believe.

 

[Muri27]

People seem to think Logic is the proof God exists? If i understand this correctly. (please say so if my limited english is bothering me to catch the real dilemma here )

I learned that it is absolutly useless to try to convince people of your idea's, this will only lead to more struggle and a more blind faith into what they believe.
Instead the only real way to go is to ask question, empower people to think about it, to be in their own strenght and not one that has been told for centuries as a mean to hold power over people. and in the end they all end up with (more or less) the same understanding of the world.

God is a man made word. 3 random letters put together nothing more and nothing less. (my logic, not yours)

did god not made man in his image? If so where is the logic in creating mankind and than demanding us to honor him as the great almighty deity that he is?
Seems to me as a selfish thing to do, exactly what he burdens us humans of being.. selfish and bad even before we are born... we have a debt to pay due to jesus dying for our sins. Pure slavery...

So by logic i decleare God = man.

and another thing, if god provides people with an absolute truth to follow and to lead a good life so you may get into heaven, You should agree with the entire bible. After all God is all knowing and he would not allow us people to wonder off our path of enlightment and be wicked due to some misinterpretation of his holy book.

If you are saying God is the energy that made the world and universe like it is now, you are saying a compleetly different thing and which i agree.
This leads to the conclusion there is no intelligent plan to create the universe but rather a chronological set of events which turned out as we are here right now.

It could have gone a [billion x billion] other ways.

just by looking into the past i resent the term God..., not because of God itself but what we humans did with the information.

 

[Sententia]

The claim that atheism needs theism to exist is silly.
The claim that all atheists are materialists is silly.
The claim that all atheists do not believe in things like love or other non-materialist things is also silly.

Lets look at atheism needing theism to exist. Beyond the etymological fallacy there is the fact that before a person becomes a theist they were an atheist. If a person never ends up being a theist or if even the entire world stopped being theists we would still have atheists.

Dawkins uses fairies as an example on occasion... If you do not believe in fairies you are an a-fairy-ist? But the state of being an a-fairy-ist is the default position. Look at the Lochness monster... at first no one believed it. Then a bunch of people did and first it was like haha silly people. But then enough people began to believe that they got a name like theists... nessies... now people will ask others are you a Nessie? No no... I am an Anessie.

The same is for theists. Atheism does not need theism to exist.

Now lets see if we can get real general here:

• Theism is a belief in God.
• Atheism is a belief that there are no gods.

Theism could be about beliefs in a certain god or faith. But because you believe in thor doesn't tell us a whole lot about how you like your coffee or whether or not you believe it is moral to kill a brother or a known murderer out of revenge. The point being there is more to your belief system then just theism. In a similar fashion there is more to an atheist belief system then just the disbelief in a god or gods.

Some atheists may be materialists. (And that means something different then materialistic. :yes But claiming all is silly. There are many world views and just being an atheist says nothing about which world view an atheist may believe.

Sometimes I feel it would be easier in cases like this to remind people that both theists and atheists are humans and have belief systems. Just because one humans likes yogurt, hates oprah and believes Jesus is real does not mean another human who doesn't believe in jesus can't also hate Oprah.

One last thing to note. It wasn't that long ago when there were no Christians. There were other beliefs in other gods and atheistic beliefs that there were no gods. That means everyone was an a-Christian. Christianity arose and spread and was reinvented so many times by so many people for various reasons. There are like 30,000 variations of ways to believe in Christianity and many of them disagree with each other on lots of core issues. (And new versions arise and fall all the time... And some are constantly evolving. How many times have the Jehovah witnesses predicted the end of the world? Mormons with god changing his mind on black people and polygamy and soon if Mormons want to keep kickin around america their god is gonna change his mind on Gay marriage and all of the sudden gay families will be able to be mormon... (Is the mormon god male?))

To clarify the theist is usually not a generic theist... They usually ascribe to a set of beliefs which dictate and affect their lives in many ways they may not even be aware of. A theist who is a Jehovah's Witness probably believes in a whole set of ridiculous fibs though. It becomes the job of the theists to describe why their flavor of theism is is true and thus why you end up with 1000s of religions.

 

[Copernicus]

Let's start with an easy one like identity. Identity is the state of affairs where something, if it exists, exists as what it is and not as something else. A = A. It leads to two corollaries:

Identity, A = A, something is itself.

Corollary: Excluded middle, A or ¬A, something is either what it is or it's something else.

Corollary: Noncontradiction, ¬(A & ¬A), something can't be itself and something contradictory at the same time and in the same respect.

Thanks for the refresher course, but I don't really need it, you young whippersnapper! I was studying this stuff before you born.

Now, consider that all humans don't exist -- furthermore, that all consciousness or minds whatsoever don't exist.

Not so hard. That has been true for most of the time that the universe has existed, and it will be true at some point in the future.

Is the universe still there? Yep. Are things in the universe still what they are -- is the earth still the earth, regardless of anyone being able to see it or name it or describe it? Yep.

I'm a big fan of Einstein, too. Let's not forget, though, that "Earth" is a word that expresses a concept, and concepts are mental constructs. So, while the Earth exists as a part of the universe independently of concepts, there is a sense in which the concept no longer exists. That is, the web of associations that define the meaning of "Earth" requires a mind to exist.

If identity is still true with no minds to conceive of it then clearly it can't come from minds; it's "out there." But it certainly isn't material, though it is part of material things.

Well, that's an interesting question. Does the relationship of "identity" exist independently of a mind? I see relations as mental constructs, so I'm not sure that "identity" has any significance independently of a mind to form that association.

So we have a step further to go: let's consider the nonmateriality of anything.

OK. I see the verb "consider" here, so we are still operating at the level of mental constructs.

Say X is the existence of anything material, and let's postulate not-X.

Your initial assumption is ambiguous because of the expression "anything material" involves a logical scope ambiguity in a conditional construction. Are you talking about a specific material entity or all things material? I suspect that you mean the latter. I don't know whether you've ever studied linguistics, but I recommend it highly. The word "any" has a special relationship with "some", and that gives rise to a potential for equivocation if you aren't careful. One of the most serious problems with symbolic logic is that there is no methodology for translating English into symbolic logic. The process tends to get mired in intuition, especially since logic is incapable of expressing presuppositions (i.e. propositions that must be true in order for assertions to have a truth value or speech acts to carry off).

Does ¬X = ¬X? Is the nonexistence of anything material exactly that? If even a tiny bit of material exists then we have X rather than ¬X, so it's obvious that ¬X must be ONLY ¬X.

I am unclear at this point on just what you mean by "X", which you originally defined as "anything material". Lots of material things exist, and even more material things do not.

Yes, identity is still true even without anything material existing. But if identity is true without anything material existing, that implies that identity itself isn't material.

It isn't. It is a relationship, not a material thing.

So, here we have something which exists that isn't material and isn't just a thought/concept of a mind: ontological materialism can't be true if this is the case.

Beware the word "exists". It does not always refer to material things in the real world. Look, I'm not an "ontological materialist", and I have trouble even understanding what it means. That is why I said what I did in my last post. It is logically possible that there is some kind of "spiritual realm" independent of our physical reality, although the idea gets dicey when you begin to talk about interactions between the spiritual and physical planes of existence. That kind of talk strikes me as intellectual quicksand. My assumption is that the mind is an emergent effect of physical reality. That is, it is entirely dependent on physical events for its existence. That is not quite the same thing as saying that the mind is just those physical events.

 

[Dan4reason]

Why do you think theism should offer anymore reason for its faith system than the atheist belief system? We are not required to explain anything unless we want to, just like you. But, why are we here? To share our ideas, that's why. Fairness is not we tell all and you say nothing.

You misunderstand my position. When it comes to a belief to an invisible man in the sky you have everthing to prove and we are not obligated to make a formal disproof even though we sometimes do... so we still do quite a bit of talking.

Just because atheists do not have to disprove God does not mean they have no opinion about the questions that matter. We have many diverse opinions on the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, alternate universes, quantum mechanics and string theory. I do have problems with several of these ideas but these are the ideas that atheists have about the universe.

What you are saying here is that you have nothing to say. That is fine. Then say nothing.

I never said that.

If this is so, you should never criticize a Christian for walking in blind faith since that is how you live, with no reasoning.It is you who says: "You see, either you believe in God or you don't it is that simple and the only thing in between is confusion and indecision."
Next you say:

My first statement was that a person believes something, does not believe something, or is confused. My second statement is that I have an argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. The contradiction between these two ideas is not apparent. Could you point it out to me?

Even without arguments against the existence of God there would still be no reason to believe in him because there is not a shred of credible evidence that he exists. We are lucky in that not only is there no good logical reason to believe in God, there is also good reason against believing in him.

Your arguments are simple and need no response. You admit you have no standards upon which to base your world view. You simply do not believe.

I like how you never responded to the argument I did have against the atonement and at first it appeared you wished that atheists would provide arguments for a change.

My summary of my position was simple and the fact that Jesus' death solves nothing should be obvious but that does not mean this idea is not worth responding to because many people believe it. If you want a formal refutation of the atonement I will give it to you.

Punishment is not all beneficial because it does create some harm for individuals. Punishment should only be used when the benefits the punishment provides outweighs the harm it does to individuals. Punishment provides two general benefits: decreasing the incident of crime and giving back to the victims. To punish for any other reason is revenge.

Punishing all sinners with hell is wrong because the harm it does to the victims outweighs the amount it decreases wrong-doing. Killing a willing innocent victim for the crimes of another is not a proper punishment or compensation because it does not pay back to the victims and does not really reduce the incident of crime. The only things that really do help are the teachings of Jesus. Is this arguement complex enough for you?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

IMO the universe is far far too big and unwieldy to be controlled by any intelligent force, so for that reason alone I find it impossible to believe in any sentient God no matter how hard I try.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why do you think theism should offer anymore reason for its faith system than the atheist belief system?

There's no such thing as the "Atheist Belief System".....you've been ill-informed..

 

[waitasec]

It is only my opinion but I think it is correct that most Christians base their beliefs on the revealed word of God and not on natural theology. there is n wrong with that approach but it is just the way it is.

which is highly suspect. but hey, that's why there is faith right.
so where is the faith if god revealed his word, sort of circular isn't it?

 

[Orias]

chemistry...

speaking from the perspective as a musician, i have experienced a connection while playing music with other musicians that is not dependent in communicating through words.

in music there is a law but this law is meant to be broken...
call it spirituality or a chemical response...it's really fun either way

Music has a very strong sense of spirituality about it. It is the expression and developement of the mind and all that is.

I know as well

I'm not sure. I was born an Atheist and was never "spiritual"....I have no idea what that means. I'm the odd man out in my family of Muslims and Christians. One thing both sides of my family could agree on and that was that I was a heathen and I was going to hell.....whatever that means...

Maybe some of the other Atheist here can answer that one. Up until a year or so ago I had no idea there was such a thing as (Agnostic Atheist) and I suspect there are a few other classifications out there.

Agnostic is "not sure, but leaning more towards God" and "gnostic" is, "not sure, but leaning away from "God".

Try and describe your view on spirituality.

I view it as, emotion, rationality, perception, and being. Spiritual aspects define the limits (or infinites) of the Oneness of the Universe and self. Hence the tie within religion ( I hate that word). But like it or not, religion is a vital part of spirituality. Does it need to exist as religion?

No, but the chosen view (the smarter ones), pushed their religious "ideals" foward and proposed that these new inconsistancies will help you with reality. But when you face the fact, religion is more conducive towards the destruction of man, simply because they all consist of the alter-ego, or against what man truly is, a natural entity, with natural sophitications.

This means, that religion is also an art form, much like music, or painting. It is a window of "opportunity", and it is created in the "image" of "God". Yet, within this very acceptence of an "individual" (such as Jesus), it has lead to one sidedness and fallacy.

Much like from the atheist stand point of, "knowing arithmetical fact". It is not so, and will never be so, you cannot determine the nature of man through arithmetic, and you cannot explain life and death through arithmetic, and so on. (I have no idea how I got onto this subject. I'm just going off. )

Now, my view of spirituality (which is conducive to both Atheists and Theists alike).

Opposition is imminent.

Not one Aspect of Life, has less than One Adversary, because all things Oppose. For One who constitutes being, accepts their own carnal desires, to be and not to be.

This means, in order to Oppose a concept of perception (everything), One must Oppose themselves in the very sequence that their own self Opposition, will lead them over themselves, giving them the capability to Oppose the standard of acceptence. (Nature Opposes itself. We live, yet we die. We fight the standard of living by trying to be eternal. Much like a match stick, a single matchstick is Opposite to itself, since its purposes are the Opposite of what it is.)

 

[Meow Mix]

What I am trying to say is that all these ontologically necessary things(maybe called definitions) come from one common source, that being existence. Admittedly you point out a big problem that philosophers have attempted to explain for ages. And that is, to make the Creator or God both transcendental and imminent at the same time. In Christian metaphysics the point at which ontological mind stuff becomes cosmological is the point in time of creation.

And here you are, at the beginning of all things where one must choose between many conflicting things whether you are an atheist or a theist. Did absolute being create the cosmological world by separating into real cosmological things by his ontological way of thinking things into existence? Or, do we want to have a faith, which says something came from nothing? The latter is too big of a jump in logic for me.

You're setting up a false dichotomy. Atheists don't believe "something came from nothing," in fact more theists believe that than atheists do in terms of the belief in creation ex nihilo.

If you're referring to the Big Bang, it doesn't represent the beginning of ontological existence. Stephen Hawking and the popular media say so sometimes but as a cosmology student I can assure you that they're just putting it into terms laypersons can understand. As far as we know the universe may have always existed in some other state(s) before the Big Bang event.

Atheist, however, make this jump in logic all the time and think it is a safe assumption. As they say, some atheist do not believe their is a God or an Absolute. Some believe there is only one absolute and that is that there are no absolutes. I am sure you have heard that. So, do you contradict yourself or do you simply refuse to recognize creation? If you do not believe that something can come from nothing, do you not discover that God is the great "I am"? This also is the Bible's take on creation. In Genesis 1, the Bible opens with "in the beginning God created" and in the Gospel of John says the "logos became flesh."

Atheism doesn't have anything to do with belief in absolutes. In fact I've already mentioned that I agree there are absolutes.

Considering logos, logic, and pure reasoning,etc., the above statement appears to be an admission with a small semantic nuance. Is a rose a rose called by another name?

Oddly, that's what I was thinking about your argument. Logic is logic, not "an aspect of God" or "a creation of God." Nothing about logic's characteristics indicate the being or actions of a deity to deduce that from. Furthermore, logic is ontologically necessary; it doesn't require a god to exist because it can't not-exist.

The proposition that God created does not say that God is a collection of eternal things, but if something does not come from nonexistence, then the Creatormust have left us with a collection of eternal truths like logic and science. It seems very rational to say if one believes there is truth in the universe, then there is a God. Also, the fact that the same science and logic on earth works throughout the universe, it is reasonable to assume this speaks to the Omani of God. But clearly God is separated from his creation.

But you're not deducing the highlighted portion from first principles; you are (as I said before) defining it into existence. You haven't provided justification for how someone can look at logic, mathematics, and reason and deduce from them "Ah, a god must exist."

None of their characteristics point to theism; if I study any of these things none of them point to the existence of a god to explain them. This is sort of like finding a dog on the street and inspecting it: if it has a collar, then by the bare characteristics of the dog you can tell that it belongs to someone. What you're doing, though, is looking at dogs that don't have collars and asserting without justification that they belong to someone.

How do you know they're not strays? I hope the analogy is clear on what I mean.