Atheism Provides the more Rational and Realistic Worldview than Theism

I thank my contender for applying powerful and thoughtful rebuttals to my arguments. “Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.” -Sir Isaac Newton (Arguably the biggest contributor to science.) As only 2 percent of the entire world population is atheist, I suggest this is what we should expect should there truly be a God. Now, correlation does not imply causation, so I ask my opponent to counter this and answer why there are so few atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org... Two Models: Evolutionary Science and Creation Science (Neither side should dismiss the other as bad science, these are two models with rational arguments that deserve to be examined.) My opponent argues that since most scientists are evolutionists, creation science is not likely to be true. But correlation does not imply causation. With the separation of church and state, no theological foot is allowed in the door of naturalistic science. These people are already atheist by the time they become scientists. Now, I want to make a bold point right here. My opponent has called creationism “worse than pseudo-science it is a bunch of pretentious bull feces” and “rubbish.” As there exists 43 percent of the American population that adhere to creation science and dismiss the theory of evolution, I defend myself and these people by saying that such rank statements do not deserve to be made, and they imply that almost half of America is irrational when it comes to science. Also, There are reasons why so many evolutionary scientists will not debate with creation scientists- they generally lose. The evidence usually supports the creationist's favor. As my opponent disagree with creationism, I challenge him to provide evidence of a sufficient amount of formal debates where the evolutionary scientist trumps the creation scientist. I (possibly erroneously) argue that even though my opponent assures me he is familiar with creationism, he has never taken the time to see their side of the argument. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.answersingenesis.org... http://www.icr.org... The Christian Religion The Christian religion is a testable faith. We can look at the historical claims, and through archeology and other historical sources we can discover whether the books of the Bible attest to mythology or actual events. Evidence of such things can be found at creation science websites (listed above) (I understand my opponent has a distaste for this, but regardless of who is doing the scientific tests, the results will still stand, no matter how much he dislikes those results). Asking the question “Can God create a rock so big that He can't lift it” does not disprove His completeness in power. A man cannot be a married bachelor. No one, not even a perfect being can create a paradox, and this is honestly an old and tired argument that I argue is a semantics argument that really won't sway any person either way as to whether God exists or not. My opponent brings in the “there is evil in the world” argument which is also an old and tired argument that is answered by (arguably) the oldest book in the bible- Job. Bad things happen to humanity because humans do terrible things and other times things go wrong. But God is not the cause of evil. The point is for everyone to remain integrity throughout their lifetime. Everyone in this life goes through troubled times, and no one has the claim to say that what they experienced is worse than others. We all suffer, and one reason most people are religious is because people want to have faith that it was not for nothing. Religion is rational because hope for a better future is what helps most people make it through the day. Arguments for God I gave a remarkable evidence for God- 3 out of 4 doctors attesting to miracles in the medical field. As I would not ask a chef to fix my car, I would go to a mechanic, so also would I not ask a physicist if he thinks miracles are happening in the medical field, because his/her opinion would be irrelevant. I would ask a person who is actually trained in that field. I just ask that my opponent acknowledges that highly trained and fully intellectual doctors attest to miracles happening today. My strongest argument that I presented was that we exist at the center of the universe, and that the galaxies' distances away from us are quantized, which strongly implies a significant place in the cosmos for us. I assume my opponent either was waiting for the next round to deal with this topic, or he dismisses it because he seems to reject any research creation scientists have done (which I hope is not the case, because a person's belief does not take away the evidence. It is still there.) Again, this is my strongest case for God, and I am anxious to see how my opponent counters it. I understand that my argument led to “God did it” and that this is obviously not a favorable solution. I do want to point out that we should not compare how animals interact to how humans do, because our language far surpasses their skills immensely so. All I ask is that my opponent acknowledge that, with our current knowledge, we must admit that if early humans did not originate with a language, they were cognitively impaired and had an increased difficulty to even learn a language, let alone create one from nothing. Obviously the book of Genesis implies Adam was created with a language, and I argue that from what we know now, this is more likely to be true than the first language being man-made. Origin of the Universe- Complex or simple? My opponent has made a valid claim- God is always the most complex. I see no other method but to argue that even though Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, this rule by it's own definition admits that there are cases when a more complex answer is needed. If scientists only used the simplest answer for every scenario, then scientists would be blatantly wrong on many issues. So I turn this argument back on my opponent- why do you insist that the origin of the universe must be simple? Why shouldn't it be complex? The universe is not becoming more complex today, it is deteriorating. So why shouldn't we assume that there was a time when it's complexity was perfect and stable? I hope I have presented fair and rational arguments for my opponent, and I anticipate his intelligent rebuttals.