An atheist (CosmicSkeptic) accidently debunks atheism

Is the suffering of wild animals "Christianity's Biggest Problem?" @CosmicSkeptic thinks so. He recently published a video in which he claims that the problem of animal suffering is even bigger than the problem of human suffering and that atheism makes far more sense of it than Christianity ever could. In this video, I am going to show you that Alex’s case is essentially an emotional appeal that directly contradicts Darwin's theory of evolution. But that's not even half of it. You are going to witness how Alex’s biggest shot AGAINST Christianity actually turns into Alex’s most convincing argument FOR it. If you are into Christian apologetics, philosophy, and the debate between atheism and Christian theism, this video is for you! Enjoy! Alex's original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KDnn... ---- Clarification (Darwinian Evolution, Intelligent Design & Alex's Case) ---- My personal position on Darwinian evolution is NOT relevant to my case against Alex in which I intentionally decided to accept and assume all of ALEX's presuppositions. I happen to believe that Darwinian evolution is not an accurate theory of how species originated. In contrast, Alex believes that it is. What IS relevant, however, is the following: If the theory of evolution is true (and Alex believes that it is), Christianity is, according to Alex's own reasoning, incalculably more plausible than atheism when we consider the natural state animals live in (which is a state of happiness, as evolutionary theory proposes, rather than of torment). But just to be clear, if we were to assume Intelligent Design (which represents my personal position), my case against Alex would still stand. And that's because animal existence being predominated by happiness is a claim that can be plausibly maintained against the background of ID theory. Of course, a lot more could be said about this topic. However, I chose not to elaborate on it because, again, my response is committed to working within ALEX's assumptions and ALEX's line of reasoning ONLY, and at no point does my case build on MY presuppositions. So, again: If we want to explain the nature of animal existence in the real world while assuming all the tenets of ALEX's argument, Christianity turns out to be incalculably more plausible than atheism. Alex's atheism has been defeated with Alex's own weapons.