Belief in god is rational.

I am sorry if I messed up the format, this is my first debate. I meant by outline that, one would state his position, and maybe how one would go about validating that position, and maybe just some opening thoughts. 1) There is no good evidence for god's existence. A belief that is rational, usually has evidence behind it. For example,a belief in atoms is rational, because there is direct observational evidence of atoms. I would go further to argue that the concept is rational. An object exist and one continues to break it down further and further, and given the object is finite it can't be broken down forever, thus there is a point at which it can't be broken down anymore and that is the atom. However for god, no such evidence exist, and the notion is not rational of its self. A brief thought on the burden of proof is needed. If a notion has not direct evidence against it, that alone does not make it rational. Russell's teapot is great exemplification. Just because there is no evidence that an undetectable teapot is not orbiting mars, does not make the belief that one is rational. 2)The evidence of the world points to the non-existence of god. A debate that has been prevalent in the philosophy of religion community for centuries is the problem of evil and its compatibility with god's omnibenevolence. It is no mystery that there is immense suffering in the world, all one must do is drive around for a while, and one is bound to come into contact with the homeless and hungry, and the problem is magnified immensely when one views other countries. The characteristic of god is omnibenevolence, that is to say god is good to everyone, and this seems to be utterly false given the evidence of the world. Starving children in third world countries seem to be ignored by god, and the European aristocracy seem to be blessed. In order to exonerate god of any questioning, the theist often says god gave us free will, and consequently some are bound to suffer. This would be a valid, except for that it is commonly claimed that god intervenes in the universe, and every time god does that, he imposes free will. A biblical example is the plagues of Egypt; the Jews were being tortured and enslaved, which I agree is awful, but given god allows free will, this event is compatible with god. By placing plagues open the Egyptians, and killing their sons(because that's really acceptable on the part of an omni-benevolent god) , god is coercing the Egyptians. If god could bring himself to negate the free will of the Egyptians, who were wicked, why is it the case the that god can not bring himself to negate the free will of the wicked now? Stalin was much worse than the Egyptian rulers. It is estimated that around six hundred thousand Jews were oppressed or killed in the slavery episode, which is awful, but Stalin is responsible for at least twenty million deaths. For god to intervene on the behalf of the Jews, but allow the death and suffering of thirty three point three times as many citizens of the USSR, is completely incompatible with the notion of omnibenevolence. It is impossible to have it both ways;either god doesn't intervene, and free will of the wicked prevails, and thus suffering is possible, or god intervenes, but only for some, but the consequence of the latter situation, is god has more regard for the well being of some as opposed to others. A common seemingly evidence based argument for god is causality. That is to say everything must have a cause, and given an infinite causal regression can't exist, there had to be a first cause, and that is god. However everything does not need a cause. In quantum physics particles are observed, not mathematically inferred to, but observed coming in and out of existence with no cause. When quantum physics is applied to the universe and the laws of physics, universe can come into existence from nothing. 3) Implications of common definitions.The first trait is omnipresence, meaning present everywhere, this creates a gigantic problem for the followers of the Abrahamic god. In the Abrahamic religions god is not defined as everything, however it is proposed god is observant, and conscious of everything. This raises a problematic question. How can something exist everywhere and be conscious of everything , and yet not be everything? This is preposterous, by definition it is only possible for one to experience what one feels himself; one can not feel anything that anybody else feels. One can attempt to understand what another feels through empathy, but of course that is quite different from experiencing the same experience as another. If god is completely conscious of what one experiences, that is to say god experiences everything one experiences, god is consequently indistinguishable from the individual experiencing the experience, and this applies to every single being in the universe that experiences anything, and the consequence is that god is actually everything that experiences anything. The concept of god is then turned into a pantheist definition of everything, and loses allure. The implications of god's omnipresence is contradictory to the notion of god being independent of everything. It is also agreed that god is eternal and given god has omnipresence, it follows that god has been present everywhere forever. It is accepted that the universe has existed for thirteen point seven billion years, but given god is eternal, god existed prior to that. However it is also accepted that there was nothing before the universe, so it follows that god was present everywhere when nothing existed. It logically follows at that time god was nothing. This is often avoided by saying god exist outside of space time. For this to be the case, the word exist would have to be used in a way that is completely different from its usual definition. If one was to say god existed before time,it is the same as saying god existed for no unit of time, and in the general usage of the word exist, if something exists for no unit of time, it doesn't or didn't exist. In regards to space, the same problem arises; if god was to exist before space, it is the same as saying he existed in no space, and consequently if something exists no space, it does not actually exist. It can still exist as an abstract concept, such as numbers, but the definition of god is that god actually exists. The implications of god's omnipresence is contradictory to the concept of god.