Atheism Provides the more Rational and Realistic Worldview than Theism

I will be defending the Christian religion. I will instantly make the argument that because Christianity is the religion with the most followers, it is most likely to be the true religion, as if God does exist, surely His religion would involve the most people. My opponent argues that religion is man-made. I completely agree, and am pleased we can immediately find common ground. However, I also believe that science is man-made. Scientists seek to discover the truth of the natural world, just as theists seek to discover the truth of the spiritual world. My opponent says that not all religions can be true. I also agree. However, he continues on to say that not even one religion is true because he demands that God should prove himself by allowing us to record miracles. 3 out of 4 doctors believe miracles are happening today. http://www.wnd.com... I argue that people in the medical field would understand the most about the science of the body, and when the majority of those physicians believe that God IS doing miracles today, how does this not meet the demands requested by my opponent? Is he willing to state that he understands more about the body than doctors, and that most of them are completely mistaken? If he is correct, we should immediately pull 73 percent of the doctors out of hospitals because they should not be operating on people if they truly show a lack of understanding of natural order. I agree that every person should meet every religion with skepticism. Just because people are born into one religion, it is quite an injustice to assume that they will never become rational people who will look at their own religion with a logical mind. My opponent fails to realize just how many people convert to faiths different from their childhood. Evolution is not a scientific theory because it belongs to the category of historical science. It cannot be proved or disproved, only speculated. The same is true with Intelligent Design. Neither are falsifiable, but both present models for explanations to how the world is. I argue that my opponent has hardly educated himself on Creation Science, and that he only speculates it upon the negative hearsay of evolutionists, which does not warrant a fair and unbiased viewpoint. The Holy Scriptures do not attest to an Omnipotent God, so the logical paradox breaks down. The Bible attests to an Almighty God, who is complete in power and in control, but there is no reason to assume that His power must exist as a paradox. My opponent claims that because evil exists, there is no God. I argue it is quite the opposite- evil exists, so there must be a God. You will never see any other species commit genocide. But humans have freewill, so they are able to produce evil acts. God exists as a Father, and those who call upon the Father can be loved, therefore, He is a loving God. My opponent makes the fallacious claim that evolution is a fact, yet earlier he lists that a bold assertion is proof of a pseudo-science: "8. Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)" As I have already stated, I believe that my opponent is ignorant to Creation Science. However, even if evolution were true, only 2 percent of all humans in history existed before the birth of Christ, which shows that the religion of Christianity came at the perfect time to the human population increasing exponentially. My opponent asserts that the origin of the universe is unknown and that no one can provide any proof for the claim, then demands that I must prove that God being eternal is the most likely solution. However, I shall attempt to appease him. I argue that not even the "simplest" part in the universe is indeed simple. From quantum mechanics to biology, everything is intricately complex. The Big Bang theory teaches less complexity leads to more complexity. In our present day observable universe, we see the complex breaking down, deteriorating. It is more likely that the universe started out with total stability and complexity from a perfect Creator, and from that time everything has been subject to the second law of thermodynamics. My first proposal to the rationality of a theistic worldview rests on the earth's position in the universe. The earth is located no more than one million light years away from the center of the universe. (with our known universe estimated at 93 billion light years across, this is dramatically close to the center. https://en.wikipedia.org...) "According to Hubble"s law, redshifts are proportional to the distances of the galaxies from us." We now know that the numerical values of these red shifts are quantized. (To give a picture, imagine a nucleus with stationary electrons at equal distances away from each other. Now switch the nucleus with our Milky Way galaxy and the electrons with other galaxies.) Our earth is is in a dignified position in the universe- the only position in this universe that can observe these quantized red shifts. http://creation.com... As I have put forth evidence from a theistic scientist, I anticipate that my opponent will deny this argument entirely. I demand that should my opponent reject this, he should counter it with a secular scientific article that directly disproves this claim. Specifically, he must disprove the quantized state of the red shifts, not merely supply a different model where the universe has no center. If he fails to do so, I argue that this is rational evidence for earth having a dignified place in the cosmos, and that it is more likely that we were created to be in the center rather than it being a coincidence. (It should also be noted that this disproves the Big Bang Theory). My second proposal applies to the origin of language. Many have theorized how language began, but it's mysterious origin puzzles everyone who studies it. It is "the hardest problem in science." (Christiansen, M. H. and S. Kirby, 2003. Language evolution: the hardest problem in science? In M. H. Christiansen and S. Kirby (eds), Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1- 15. ) Studies of feral children (children raised in isolation, sometimes in the wilderness) show that after they have spent a significant time being isolated, after they have been discovered and brought back into civilization, they have generally remained cognitively impaired, they had difficulties in learning languages, and usually wished to return back to isolation. http://www.mnn.com... Now imagine ancient mankind having no language at all. How should we believe that they created a language when modern humans have a difficulty in merely learning a language after significant time spent without knowing one? I argue that this also implies it is more likely that a Creator endowed us with the gift of language, and that the first language was not likely to be man made. Now, after the initial language, it became easy to create other languages, which is why all modern languages come from past ones. I feel as I have already given more than an adequate amount of material for my opponent to debate with, so I will wrap up this round. I applaud my opponent for rational and understandable reasons for his position, and I hope that I have challenged him as much as he as challenged me.