Debate: Christianity or Atheism?
Side: Atheism

Christians often claim that they believe in the existence of God. But that's all there is to it. They believe that God exists, but they don't know. In order to win this debate, they first needs to bear the burden of proof that God exists. To illustrate this, I turn to the words of the celebrated Cambridge philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. In an article entitled "Is There a God?", Prof. Russell wrote:"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."Atheists would recognise this as Russell's famous Celestial Teapot Argument. But let me ask, "What does it actually mean to 'bear the burden of proof'?" Since Christianity is a form of monotheism, in order to bear the burden of proof, Christians need to:1. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.2. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of theism (i.e. deism, pantheism and the rest).3. Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no logical reasons to subscribe to other forms of monotheism (i.e. mainly Judaism and Islam).Until and unless she can do this, we must accept that the atheist position is the more rational position.However, I am not going to stop here. Let me briefly present two arguments that make atheism seem to be the more plausible position vis-a-vis Christianity.First, I'll present the logical Problem of Evil:1. If the Judeo-Christian God exists (henceforth referred to as "God"), He possesses the characteristics of omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing and all-wise) and omnibenevolence (perfectly good and morally perfect).2. If God exists and is omnipotent, he is able to eliminate all evil and suffering.3. If God exists and is omniscient, he knows about all potential sources and occurrences of evil and suffering.4. If God exists and is omnibenevolent, he has the absolute desire to eliminate all evil and suffering.5. Evil and suffering exists.Ergo,6. God does not exist.Next is the evidential form of the Problem of Evil:1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.Ergo,3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good being.What are the implications of the Problem of Evil? If Christians want to solve the Problem of Evil, they must deny one of the three characteristics God is said to possess (i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect goodness). If Christians want to hold that God is good, then they must necessarily assert that God is either not omniscient or not omnipotent. However, the burden of proof is still on the Christian to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is true.