Atheism is more rational than Christianity

1. Definitions "Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" and "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" are the two definitions of atheism given by the quoted source. Both definitions essentially mean the same thing (as should be expected.) An atheist disbelieves in the existence of God. It is not merely a lack of belief, which is at best a strange psychological state, it is more than that; atheism says there is no God. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is consistent with the belief system you appear to endorse, a belief system of uncertainty (or neither belief nor disbelief.) But if we cannot agree on the terminology, we can at least both acknowledge that "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" (whatever word we want to apply to that) is not more rational than Christianity.2. Civil Court ExampleIn the last round, I gave the example of a civil court trial in order to show that the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven to an absolute certainty, but that we (the atheist and the theist) can both follow the evidence where it leads. Pro seemed to agree that we ought both follow the evidence where it leads, but I would just add that the statement made by Pro "True but in court in order for the defendant to be guilty, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" is false. My example was that of a civil court trial, not a criminal court trial. In a civil court trial, 51% certainty will do in order to win a case. This is the type of "trial" we ought to use when following the evidence where it leads in the case of God's existence.3. Pro's Claim that "Faith by definition is unreasonable"In order to show that this claim was false, I asked Pro to provide justification for the belief that the past is real (as opposed to being created, say, 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age) as well as justification for the belief that the external world exists. Pro responded by attempting to provide geological and historical evidence for the past being real. This just shows a misunderstanding of the concept. Geological and historical records mean nothing when trying to show the past is real, for in the scenario I have given it is possible that the ideas of geological and historical records were placed into our minds within the last few minutes. It takes faith in our memory to believe that the past is truly real, just as it takes faith in our physical senses to believe that the external world really exists. Neither can be proven with evidence; both require a great degree of faith, faith which Pro has claimed is unreasonable. Faith in God is no less reasonable than faith in the truth of our memory or in the accuracy of our physical senses.4. Pro's Claim that a Being Beyond Space and Time is IncoherentIt has been asserted that the idea of a transendent being is incoherent. I see no reason to think that this is the case. I can perfectly well conceive of a spiritual being who requires neither space nor time to exist. 5. The Omnipotence ParadoxPro gave the following set of reasoning in order to support his assertion that God is incoherent:"1) God is omnipotent2)Omnipotence is the power to do all things logically possible (in accordance with your objection)3) A logically possible feat is any coherent action one can speak out loud without contradiction3a) any feat that has been done before is logically possible4) It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (From #3)5)Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker (From #2-4)6) Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being (definition of "maker" by an omnipotent being"7)For any finite mass of rock it is logically possible to generate a force that will lift it against a uniform gravitational field (Newtons 2nd Law)8) Therfore an omnipotent being can lift any finite mass of rock (From #2 and #7)9) Premise #6 and premise #8 are contradictions10) Therfore it is logically impossible to be omnipotent (From #3 and #8)11) Therefore, god (as defined as omnipotent) is logically impossible"This argument is trivially easy to recognize as false. It is not logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker if that maker is God. The idea of a "rock that cannot be lifted by God" is incoherent, in the same way that a square triangle or the smell of the color purple are. Showing that "a maker" (in other words, "a human") could chip off a piece of rock too heavy for himself to lift does nothing to show that the same would be true for God. The incoherence in this case does not apply to God, but rather to the idea of this very heavy rock that Pro attempts to describe.6. Back to the Subjects of Space and Time"The argument is that being beyond space and time is incoherent and wholly unknowable and non demonstrable. Yet Christians claim they know their god exists there. That is unreasonable."Once again, I will have to ask you to provide some sort of warrant for the claim that it is incoherent for anything to exist outside of space and time. As stated previously, I can perfectly well concieve of a spiritual being who requires neither space nor time to exist. Furthermore, we have examples such as abstract objects (i.e. numbers) and objective truths. Both of these exist outside of and independent of space and time. So, it seems to me that there is no incoherence of transendence of space and time. 7. Arguments in Favor of the Rationality of Belief in GodFirst, I would like to point out that in each of the three arguments I gave, the roman numeral represents a description of the argument and not the first premise of the argument. My apologies for not making this clear. So the following statements are a simple misunderstanding of the structure of the argument:"Usually this would go as the final premise. Putting it here just allows me to show you havent demonstrated that and ignore the rest. i wont but just know i could.""Stop there. You've merely asserted fine tuning without demonstrating it. The rest cannot logically follow unless you do so.""Youve asserted objective morality exists without demonstrating it. Morality is subjective to so many factors like culture, time period, situation, ect."Now, let us turn to the objections to the premises themselves. The first premise to the first argument reads "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." To this, Pro stated "Everything in human existence has come about through "creatio ex materia" or the rearrangement of pre-existing materials." This is false. Our universe is part of human existance, and it is incoherent that the universe itself could be rearranged from previously existing materials simply because there were no preexisting materials to rearrange with! Out of nothing, nothing comes. The second premise reads "The universe began to exist." It appears that Pro disagrees with this statement, although I don't believe the reasoning was given. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) must have began to exist. Futhermore, one who asserts that the universe is eternal faces the philisophical dilemma of Hilbert's Hotel, which shows that the idea of an infinite number of things existing in reality (i.e. past events of an external universe) is absurd. Pro did not give reasoning for his disagreement with the other arguments I presented. As I have run out of space, I will address these further if necessary in the next round.We have still not been given any good reason to think that "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" is more rational than the belief in the Christian God. Until Pro can both defeat each of the arguments I presented and take on the burden of proof for showing that atheism is more rational than Christianity, we can assume that the given assertion is unwarranted and false.