It is irrational to believe that the Christian God exists.

Good luck, Cody.Contention 1: Lack of belief in the Christian God's existence is the null hypothesis.This is the common "Atheism is the default position" argument. Lack of belief in a higher power (or in this case, the Christian God) is the default position, otherwise known as the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is assumed to be true unless there is sufficient evidence to lead one to the conclusion that the null hypothesis must be rejected. If insufficient evidence is provided to justify the alternative hypothesis (in this case, the Christian God's existence), then one must fail to reject the null hypothesis.The point of this argument is that as with any falsifiable claim, there must be a good enough reason to accept it in order for it to be considered rational. In most cases, that reason is known as evidence. To date, almost everything that we have learned about the universe, the world, evolution, and how life works, contradicts people's beliefs in the Christian God. From what we have observed over the years, we know that intelligence requires a mind, which in turn requires a physical brain. A non-physical mind or brain that somehow pocesses all of the knowledge in the world without the physical requirements that have been observed defies everything we know about intelligence [1]. This sort of claim requires evidence in order to rationally justify it.Without evidence, a thiest has no rational reason to believe that the Christian God exists. One might say that a theist has faith, which by definition, is a belief that is not based on proof. It is logically incoherent to have faith, instead of reasonable conclusions based on evidence (the resolution is affirmed).Contention 2: There are good reasons to lack belief in the Christian God.The following objections to the Christian God's existence demonstrate that it is irrational to believe that he exists.Sub-Contention A: The Problem of EvilI hope this doesn't fall under the category of "low-level" trolling outlined by my opponent in the first round, because it is a problem that has yet to be accounted for.In most cases, the Problem of Evil doesn't demonstrate that a higher power doesn't exist, rather it demonstrates that if one does, it doesn't pocess the quality of omnibenevolence. However, given my definition of the O3 God that my opponent has accepted, the PoE can be used to demonstrate that the O3 God does not exist.For those unfamiliar with the PoE, here is the argument: Premise 1: If God exists, he is omnipotent (He has the power to rid the world of evil)Premise 2: If God exists, he is omniscient (He has the knowledge of how best to rid the world of evil, and He has objective knowledge of what qualifies as evil and what does not)Premise 3: If God exists, he is omnibenevolent (He would do anything in his power to rid the world of evil)Premise 4: If God exists, given 1, 2, and 3, evil should not exist.Premise 5: Evil exists.Conclusion: Given 4 and 5, God does not exist.This argument rests on the idea that there is no rational and concievable reason for evil to exist in this world. If this evil could have been prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse, then why not prevent it? These are questions that don't have a single comprehensible answer, and this argument is almost 2000 years old.Take a look at the conclusion of the argument. I'm not going to claim that this argument fully demonstrates that the Christian God does not exist, but this argument can easily be made that it is irrational to think that He does. If there is no rational reason for evil to exist alongside the O3 God, then given that evil DOES exist, there is no rational reason to believe that the O3 God exists [2]. Thus, this argument is a good reason to doubt the Christian God's existence (the resolution is affirmed).Sub-Contention B: The existence of Non-belief (also known as the argument from locality).This argument is extremely similar to the Problem of Evil, so I shall be brief.This argument is based around the premise of a God who rewards believers and punishes non-believers. The Christian God does these things (believers go to heaven, non-believers go to hell), so this argument is justified.Assumptions:1) God exists2) God is defined as the Christian O3 God.3) God is rational and wants all humans to be saved (or at the very least, for all humans to be given a chance at salvation)4) God rewards believers and punishes non-believersProblems[3]:1) The Christian God went from being the God of the Jews to the God of the world. During this transition, God's new plan for humanity was that anyone who followed him could be saved. However, God didn't reveal this revelation right away (thousands of years later, in fact), meaning that anyone living in that time period had no chance at being saved.2) God only revealed himself to a small group of people in the Middle East, about 2000 years ago. After that point, He left it to those humans to spread the word, meaning that some people recieved better evidence than others. Anyone with a reasonable doubt of objection to these outlandish claims would be doomed.3) People who understand the nature of evidence have no chance at salvation, because they reject claims without evidence supporting them.Conclusion:This God does not fit what we would deem "rational". An all knowing and all powerful God would have realized these problems and would have prevented them from happening in the first place. If there really were a one, true religion, none of these things would be an issue[4]. Thus, there is good reason to lack belief that this all knowing and all powerful God exists (the resolution is affirmed).I had more I wanted to include, but I ran short on time. Apologies.I'm looking forward to my opponent's opening constructive.Citations:1. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...2. http://plato.stanford.edu...;3. http://www.ebonmusings.org...4. http://www.ebonmusings.org...;