Christianity(pro) vs Atheism(con)

Thanks, since this round is only for the opening arguments, I will offer some reasons to think Christianity is illogical. The Christian view of God contradicts reality The God of Christianity is portrayed as a God of love, power, and wisdom [http://www.lns.cornell.edu...]. However, these characteristics are contrary to reality. The problem of evil states 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5. Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. C. Therefore, the God of Christianity doesn't exist. Evil is defined as pain and suffering. [http://plato.stanford.edu...]. There are a lot of responses to this. The most common being the free will defense. So, I will answer that one now. The main assumption behind that defense is that free will can't exist without evil. The Christian faith itself seems to disagree. If such a thing is true, is there free will in heaven? Because there is no pain and suffering in heaven. If there isn't then it would be very contrary to the God of Christianity. When we get to heaven we wouldn't freely enjoy it, we'd be robots forced to enjoy it and forced to praised. However, if there is free will in heaven, then the entire assumption behind the free will defense is destroyed. Furthermore, we seem to have restrictions, even if we are free. For example, many things can be done to a building. We can 1. Paint the building 2. Lean on the building 3. Punch the building However we can't 4. Jump over the building 5. Turn the building into an invisible pink unicorn 6. Lift the building above my head Does the inability to do 4-6 violate free will? Why couldn't God put evil in the same category as 4-6? Christianity's Book is wrong The argument goes like so, 1. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” 2. God is suppose to be perfect 3. His scripture is full of errors making it imperfect 4. A perfect God can't breath an imperfect book C. Christianity is false Proof of Premise 3 The bible seems to teach the out dated Geocentric model. Joshua 10:12-13 12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Many of tired to get around this by stating Joshua only said it appeared that way. However this is wrong for many reasons. First, Joshua asked God to stop the sun, not the earth. If we were speaking in an appearance manor we don't ask for the said appearance. Second, Habakkuk 3:11 states "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear." Clearly showing the belief that the sun itself stopped rotation. Some have also tried to get around this by pointing out that the sun does rotate around the milky way. This is true, however it wouldn't have any affect on the earth's day, because if the sun moved or not, it still creates curvature in spacetime. Stating that both the sun and earth stopped would be wishful thinking, speculating with no scriptural support. Alternatively one could say that Geocentrism is true. However this is shown wrong by many observable effects. *Stellar parallax [http://abyss.uoregon.edu...] *Basic Gravity [Curtis Wilson, "The Newtonian achievement in astronomy", pages 233–274] *Stellar aberration [http://mathpages.com...] We also know the Earth rotates by the effects it produces. Like, * Coriolis effect [http://abyss.uoregon.edu...] * Foucault's pendulum [http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au...] Historical contradiction The Bible contains many historical contradictions. I feel that a powerful one is the contradiction between Christ's birth. “The Gospel of Luke claims (2.1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew claims (2.1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive--possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Other elements of their stories also contradict each other. Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod's death to 4 B.C., and the sequence is indisputable, Luke and Matthew contradict each other.” - Historian Richard Carrier [http://www.infidels.org...] Many have tried to refute this contradiction, yet none have succeed. Richard Carrier has refuted every single apologist answer I've seen. Demonstrating that their answers are full of errors [Ibid]. On a final thought, Pro could claim all of these errors are just figurative. However Occam's Razor would then favor a rejection of the scripture. Believing in a book full of ad hoc figurative language and hidden meanings to get around errors is a lot more complex than simply not believing it at all. For instance, if I were to state that "The moon is made of cheese" someone could state that they believe in that statement, but not in a literal sense. They could state "moon" and "cheese" are just symbolic teachings. However, a simple rejection of that statement would not add as many assumptions. Thanks.