Atheism is more logical than theism.

I'm looking forward to a mutual learning experience. The theme of this debate is “logic,” from the title to Pro's first paragraph. I (Con) will “logically” demonstrate the following: Theism is as logical as Atheism; as oppose to the title of this debate, “Atheism is more logical than theism. ” However, Pro took an illogical spin on this debate hinging that the “Burden of Proof” (BoF), pertains to the existence of a God. That is a different debate, unrelated to the logic presented in the title of this debate. Both Atheist and Theist knows that God is a function of faith, therefore, logic based on metaphysical constructs is in the eyes of the beholder. And on that note, let's study the logic between Evolutionism vs Creationism. The late Joseph Campbell (one who studied the evolution of religion) once stated (. http://www.brainyquote.com...): “Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. ”I (Con) claims to be a Deist: “The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. ”. http://dictionary.reference.com...Both Atheist and Deist understands the importance of the scientific method to study repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living. When we understand a pattern to some degree, we classify it as a Law in Nature. Through science, both Atheist and Deist recognize the current scientific view about the Big-Bang is the beginning of the universe. Deist believes, like all Theist, God created the universe and everything in it, including the Laws of Nature. From the Deist's vantage point, the Laws of Nature is simply the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting. On the other hand, for Atheist and those of faith (Theist), including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc. ). And in saying that, Con hopes Pro will not take this debate in the weeds of man's written scriptures about God. After creation (the Big-Bang), God's Laws of Nature is the program of the universe for defining the evolutionary dynamics for inanimate and animate operating within God's matrix. The difference between Atheist and Deist is belief in the event entity before the Big-Bang. Today, the men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the “Big Bang;” until then, we have those who believe in God (Deist, Theist, etc. ) ---Creationist, or hypothetical assumptions (Atheist)---Evolutionist. It is not clear how the Big-Bang is an evolutionary step. Therefore, we Deist, like Theist, like Atheist, has some “logical” opinion on the event entity before the Big-Bang, and this opinion is simply based on faith. However, Pro insists that the BoF of this debate includes the existence of a God, therefore, relative to my belief (Con) the “logical” beginning of the universe being the Big-Bang is one of creation not evolution! I would like to learn from Pro's arguments how the Big-Bang is a “logical” evolutionary step, a step relative to what? One of the definitions of evolution follows: “a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements” (. http://dictionary.reference.com...).A more detail overview of evolution is in the following: . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Since evolution is a function of the Laws of Thermodynamics, Pro needs to demonstrate Thermodynamics existed before the Big-Bang; otherwise, Theism is as logical as Atheism.