Belief in god is rational.

My opponent states that a belief in atoms is rational. My opponent has never seen an atom, heard an atom, felt an atom, smelt an atom nor tasted an atom on its own. Con has only experienced things which he/she perceives to be a combination of atoms but in actuality may not be at all. He has read books on the matter that are agreed by those in the scientific community but much like God, atoms are often disputed as being 3 or 5 parts, being truly apart from one another or overlapping. In fact, the atom has most likely had more dispute over not only its existence but its very nature than any god ever did in the first generation of religion. Thus, I do not at all see how it is any more rational to believe in an atom than to believe in a god. Following on from this, Con states that there has been direct observational evidence of atoms. There have also been people who have not only seen god but seen the devil himself as well as hell, heaven the virgin Mary, Jesus Christ as well as Muhammad and would call you a fool for doubting them with the same sincerity as any physicist would if you doubted the existence of the atom that they hold so much faith in the existence of. On top of this people have seen the miracles and effects of a god first-hand and have supplied us with written evidence as well (well written evidence as best they could back then). Moving on from this, con claims that "if an object exists and one continues to break it down further and further, and given the object is finite it can't be broken down forever, then there will be a point at which it can't be broken down anymore and that is the atom. " I shall now reword his logic replacing only the nouns: "If a timeline of creation exists and one continues to break it down further and further, and given the timeline of creation is finite it can't be broken down forever, then there will be a point at which it can't be broken down anymore and that is the god. This is identical to Con's logic only changing the nouns to suit my needs as he/she did to suit his/hers. Con states: "Just because there is no evidence that an undetectable teapot is not orbiting mars, does not make the belief that one is rational. " I reply: "Yes indeed and just because there is no evidence that no atom whatsoever exists, does not make the belief that one is rational. " My opponent then states that god is omni-benevolent. It actually is not written in any single religion on Earth that god is omni-benevolent and this fallacious claim is why the paradox doesn't work. God makes the rules, but he isn't playing our game. He is the referee, he doesn't have to follow the same rules as the football players. He has no obligation to be 'good' because there is no one to punish him. He is permitted to be as malignant as he wishes as long as he loves us all in his own. subjective way. God makes people suffer to test them. He has no obligation to make the test fair on everyone nor does he have any obligation to send you to heaven or hell based on how you behaved in life, it's all his choice and his decision. He has the power, you have none. You can question him and say he's a hypocrite but the fact that god is a hypocrite does not make believing in his existence irrational. that would mean that believing that Stalin existed would be irrational. If you wish, I can prove that Stalin was just as much of a hypocrite as god (not Hitler though, if you were wondering, that guy was super-consistent in his values [no sarcasm intended]). My opponent states that: "In quantum physics particles are observed, not mathematically inferred to, but observed coming in and out of existence with no cause. When quantum physics is applied to the universe and the laws of physics, universe can come into existence from nothing. " In return I reply: "In Theism, gods are observed, not mathematically inferred to, but observed coming in and out of existence with no cause. When Theism is applied to the universe and the laws of physics, God can come into existence from nothing. " Although God hasn't yet come out of existence, it is possible that he can come in and out of our reality, as in our universe, and move to other ones as he pleases. My opponent raises the question: "How can something exist everywhere and be conscious of everything , and yet not be everything? " I reply: "How can something exist in a body and be conscious of a debate on a website, and yet not be a debate on a website? "