Atheism is more rational than Christianity

First, to his "argument" at the end of his last post: 1. The argument suffers from being poorly presented (syllogisms please), seemingly invalid (the conclusion doesn't follow from what I take to be the premises, and NONE OF THE PREMISES ARE ARGUED FOR!!! Compare this to my own argument, which has all of these features., and we can conclude that this Christian theist is not more rational than this atheist (at least thus far). 2. Even in its strongest form, presented infinitely better by professional philosophers, it is still just a bad argument from ignorance. 3. You may want to type "God did not create the universe" into google. 4. The Earth WAS NOT "created in the beginning", but is over 4bn years old, while the singularity, consensus holds, was around 13.7bn years ago(1). Hmm . . . On evolution, Evolution is a zero sum game, i.e. what is best for the cat is worst for the mouse. Also, many of the points from my first post about it were left vacant. On the compatibility of Genesis with the science perhaps I wasn't clear. If one wants to interpret it to succumb to evolution then fine. It is perhaps possible to reconcile the 2, when and only when the bible is subordinate to the science. I think that there are still clear problems, but I think conceding your whole case would make your Christian theism no more rational than those who can do the exact same thing for Nostradamas' notoriously vague predictions about the future after these things have already happened. I'd recommend an article by Michael Shermer, "Genesis Revisited", which shows what Genesis should have said. Before I get on to dealing with the bible specifically, I should perhaps address your response to the problem of evil. First, I seem to be in danger of inevitably losing the debate because my opponent claims omniscience: "there is ALWAYS an adequately compensating good, from a Christian perspective" How one could possibly know this when they could not even know all the evil in the world, past and present, is, in short, why I am an atheist. This statement is, sorry to be rude, perhaps the single most ridiculous response to the problem I have ever heard. To deal with moral evil, God is restricted, and his Righteousness vindicated in Hell, which seems to me like curing a headache with a guillotine. Hell creates far more problems than it solves, mainly UNCOMPENSATED EVIL! We also have problems with free-will, and whether this can be reconciled with threats of eternal damnation, as well as the obvious and most basic moral principle that retributive torture is wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Even in the case of the most reprehensible of people, at worst, you accept this, as and when you accepted premise 1. In the case of Down's syndrome, a "retreat to the possible" will not save you, because you need to show IN EACH CASE that there is an adequately compensating good, that this is only brought about by logically necessary evil. Your response does neither, but seems to suggest something like a Christ-finding theodicy, and begs the question by assuming that compensation will be in the next life when THIS IS THE PROPOSITION AT STAKE! So let's summarise and clarify this. You need to show, in the case of these suffering children, both that there was an adequately compensating good AND that this good could only be achieved through their suffering. Saying that their suffering warns people of God or brings people closer to him fails because of these crucial reasons: 1. You have not shown that it is either logically necessary for this to create a compensating good. 2. You have not shown any evidence of the compensating good, merely speculated on its possibility. 3. These things happen to people who have already accepted God into their lives, as well as the existence of evil which is never heard of, such as William Rowe's famous hypothetical fawn burning alive in a forest. 4. Evil, as it turns out is actually perpetuated by one's mere survival. We all require plants and animals to die to sustain our own life. 5. Many, if not most atheist have the problem of evil as their primary reason for disbelief. If this said disbelief earns them a 1 way ticket to hell, then even the appearance of uncompensated and /or unnecessary suffering becomes a problem in and of itself. As perhaps the world's single most respected Christian scholar N.T Wright pointed out in his debate with Bart Ehrman: "If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass." On the bible in original Hebrew, I am reminded of hearing about an American politician, who when asked if the bible should be translated into Spanish said, "if English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me." And, apparently, he wasn't joking. As for Con's case, you use translations without argumentation (5 different translations of Yom, why choose yours?), and as for creation ex nihilo (bara‘), THIS DOES GO AGAINST EVOLUTION BECAUSE CERTAIN ANIMALS (including men and whales) WERE BARA'ED OUT OF NOTHING!(2) With that, I think your case is perhaps unique, in being both irrelevant and wrong. Even if it sort of, vaguely, distantly does resemble evolution, SO WHAT? Seriously, why not just admit that the bible is wrong in some places, and that this is the corruption of it by man? Christian liberalism would get you where you want to go with no arguments from me, but, this, I fear would not even come close for a case that Christian Theism is more rational than atheism. It seems to me that you seem to want to square a circle, which, in my opinion, is not only clearly contrived, but utterly pointless. This laborious and unenviable task of intellectual gymnastics I think somewhat proves my point, and, in a way, becomes somewhat of a bludgeon to the motion at hand. Instead of simply accepting the data, whatever it may be, you are constantly trying to give credibility to Christianity through vague and utterly unconvincing interpretations. Anyway that's enough for you to think about for know. I'm pretty sure that this will keep you occupied, and sorry for the delay in responding. Someone thought it would be a good idea to turn off the phones where I live. Growl. Kind regards, unitedandy (1) http://www.aip.org... (2)http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org...