which makes more sense ? islam(christianity)(judaism)(pro) vs atheism( con)

DISCLAIMERPro did not provide a definition of "makes more sense" in his opening statement, although the term is vague and could have many different meanings and criteria. I took that step in my first round and defined "makes more sense" and then built my arguments based on that.More Sensible(makes more sense): Having or showing more good sense or judgment[1].It is now clear that Pro is rejecting the importance of good evidence as a necessary basis for good judgment, but simply arguing that his religion personally makes sense to him, while atheism doesn't. His resolution is self-defeating, subjective and untenable as one can use a similar approach and say that "apples make more sense than oranges, as there are things about apples which I understand and things about oranges which I don't."If Pro wants to debate that resolution, then he should concede this debate and start another one that does explain his definition of "makes more sense" from Round 1.Pro argues, "No it is not sensible to not believe in something when you don't have a good reason not too... if somebody knocked on the door, and you came to open it and you find nobody, and you ask your self, but someone knocked on the door the door can't knock it self,"Rebuttal: What Pro gets wrong is that a knock on the door is a good reason to suspect that someone is behind the door. To draw further on this analogy, it is "nonsensical" to believe someone is behind the door without any good evidence(e.g doorbell, knock). Islam so far is "nonsensical" as it was not supported with good evidence. REBUTTALNecessary conditions for a miracle-claim:(C1) Revealed knowledge cannot exist before Mohammad's time.(C2) Revealed knowledge cannot be scientifically inaccurate.(C3) Qur'anic verses cannot be subjectively and wrongly interpreted.(C4) Interpretation cannot commit the fallacy of the excluded middle or the Texas Sharpshooter logical fallacy.Moon has borrowed light miracle-claimViolation of C1: Anaxagoras(400-500BC) asserted centuries before the Qur'an was revealed that: ”The moon does not have its own light, but light from the sun.”[2] This knowledge was also known by Thales centuries before that[3].Big Bang miracle claimQur'anic verse: "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them..."Violation of C4: The Qur'an says no such thing as the Big Bang but speaks of parting the actual Earth and the heavens. The Earth didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.Violation of C1: In Sumerian literature which precedes the Qur'an, we find the same claim in the Epic of Gilgamesh: “When the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens...”[4]Seven-skies miracle claimPro claims that the Qur'an's seven skies are the sky, solar system and the Big bang.Violation of C4: This is a classic example of a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: A logical fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities[5]. How are the Big Bang and the solar system skies?Sun's orbit miracle-claimViolation of C1: Hipparchus(190–120 BC) described with precision the elliptical orbits of the sun, and Babylonian astronomy, centuries before Hipparchus, spoke of the sun's orbit[6,7]....Pro then gives many reasons I found irrelevant to the topic like "Muslims cannot eat pork" and "Women in Islam wear Hijab". SUMMARYI've argued throughout this debate that agnostic atheism makes more sense than Islam, Christianity and Judaism as it shows a better sense of judgment based on the burden proof and insufficiency of evidence in Pro's position. Pro, on the other hand, has failed to provide good support for his position further proving my case.[Citations in the comment section]