Hopefully this will scare off any atheist newfags from reddit who mistakenly believe they're in good company.
As a note, the burden of proof lies on the "atheist" who claims God doesn't exist or is unlikely to exist, because once it is accepted that neither of these is true, choosing God is a personal choice. The burden of proof is not on me to prove God exists because my claim is only that God doesn't necessarily not exist nor is He unlikely to exist. If you do not hold a belief about God's existence nor the likelihood of His existence, you are without this knowledge and are an agnostic by definition. If you insist on calling yourself an "agnostic atheist," know that this phrase is a redundant rhetorical tautology, and thus that its usage can only be assumed to be meant to implicitly equivocate classical atheism and new "atheism."
---
1. Some things are moved
2. Everything that is moving is moved by a mover
3. An infinite regress of movers is impossible
4. Therefore there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds
5. This mover is what we call God
1. Logical absolutes exist.
2. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature--are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
3. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true.
4. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different--not absolute.
5. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them.
6. This mind is called God.
7. Furthermore, if there are only two options to account for something, i.e., God and no God2 3, and one of them is negated, then by default the other position is validated.
8. Therefore, part of the argument is that the atheist position cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes from its worldview.