Resolved: It is more rational to worship the stars than the Judeo-Christian God

I would like to point out that I, and any rational observer, cannot come from the assumption of metaphysical naturalism (the spiritual world does not exist) or one of nihilism, but rather from (as Socrates did) from the standpoint of ignorance as to whether the spiritual world exists and whether absolute truth and true meaning exist. This should be the debate's starting score, with both sides having to defend any arguments they make for and against a metaphysical-naturalistic/nihilistic worldview. Last time I checked, I am not Calvin_Cambridge, Kohai, ScarletGhost, Samian96, or Darknes. Therefore I am eligible to take this debate. Definitions are, of course, important and are discussed in detail below: I will take the Orthodox Christian/Lewisian Christian conception of God. This conception of God differs greatly from the Protestant view (and I'm not entirely clear on exactly what the Jewish view is, although I think for Orthodox Jews it's fairly similar). I will be using this conception of God as it is the one that, to my observation, makes sense. I will not defend other conceptions and views of God, as I would probably agree they are ridiculous. I am afraid there is some ambiguity still with the definition of "The Stars". Could you clarify whether you mean (definitions from Merriam-Webster's) 1." a : a natural luminous body visible in the sky especially at night b : a self-luminous gaseous spheroidal celestial body of great mass which produces energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions." or 2. "a planet or a configuration of the planets that is held in astrology to influence one's destiny or fortune —usually used in plural." The definition of "rational" begs the meaning of reason. I will not argue solely from naturally-provable arguments but also from rational arguments not necessarily based on natural knowledge, and so we must come up with a definition of reason. This is an extremely hard word to define, but I propose that we define reason as the examination of belief and knowledge in accordance with the laws of Socratic/Aristotelian logic. The other extremely important word is "worship". The problem with this word is, at least under the Orthodox conception of God, "worship" means something a bit different than what is normally meant by that word. However, the definition of worship from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: ": reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence." will suffice for a suitable definition at least for this preliminary round. I have a problem with the defined burden of proof. You have said that God is both "better" and "more rational". The resolution says nothing about "better", and that term is so ambiguous as to be practically meaningless to the debate as it could mean "more useful" (a definition that would make the negative an impossible side to defend), "more true" (saying the same thing as "more rational"), or "more right" (which would be either nonsense or begging the question of the existence of God, in that if God does exist, then to render worship to the stars would be wrong, and if God does not exist, then there would be no difference in right and wrong between the two). I propose, rather, that we evaluate arguments based only upon their truth, as qualified through logic, and not upon which argument is "better". However, I do agree to a system in which both sides must make and defend positive arguments for their side as well as making negative arguments against the other side. I wish that understanding would be gained by this debate and that in this debate the truth would be weighed and shown clearly. I further propose that the we may, in writing their cases and such, be free to question each other about each others' thoughts and cases and arguments and such in the comments with reasonable expectation of answer.