Christianity is false

I accept. I'm not sure whether on not you wanted me to post my first argument here, but because there's only three rounds I will. I believe there is good evidence for the case of Christianity. I will propose 2 main pillars of evidence: The cosmological argument and the morality argument. The Cosmological Argument: In science, there have been 2 main beliefs about the universe, the most common being the belief that the universe at a time, about 13.8 billion years ago began from an infinitesimally small point and from that one point all of space, time, matter and energy came into being. I agree with this, and I find no contradiction between the Genesis narrative and this scientific explanation of our universe's beginning. In fact, they both compliment each other quite well. In contrast to the scientific theory I just presented, other philosophers and scientists have proposed the the universe, in reality, had no beginning and has existed eternally. This idea, however, is absurd for a number of reasons. First, that explanation is telling us that we have had an infinite past, but mathematically, when you use infinity, you encounter contradictions. For example, if you have have an infinite amount of apples, and you take half of them, how many are left? Well infinity. And you have infinity, too. This goes to show that infinity is only an idea, and doesn't actually exist. Likewise, if you had and infinite past, and an infinite number of past events, according to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, or Entropy, which says the the total amount of energy in the universe is running down, then by now, our cosmos would be ice cold, with no leftover energy. So, with this in mind, the most logical explanation of the universe is the big bang. But how must atheists deal with the big bang? They are forced, by definition, to say that the cosmos, all the space, time, matter and energy came by and from nothing. But surely that doesn't make sense? From nothing nothing comes. So the big bang that held all of space, matter and time, necessarily needed a 'big banger' that was the cause of it. But in order to be the cause of all space, time and matter, that being must be un-caused, space-less, time-less, and immaterial, with extraordinary power. That is what Christians call God. The Moral Argument: This argument goes basically like this: 1) If objective moral values exist, then God exists. 2) Objective moral values DO exist. 3) Therefore, God exists First let me explain what I mean by objective moral values. Objective moral values mean that there are moral values that exist and stay the same whether anyone believes they do or not. For example, if you take the Holocaust, murdering 6 million Jews and 5 million more Poles, gypsies, elderly etc., would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won WWII and had succeeded in brainwashing everyone alive. People can only choose 2 different beliefs about morality, either it's subjective, and changes with each person's individual beliefs, or that it's objective and stays the same despite humans' beliefs. Let's take a look at the first belief, that morality is subjective. To disprove this, I would simply appeal to your own experience. We have all seen people quarrel, and they say things like this, "Hey, I was here first, you can't cut in like that," and "You promised," and "Give me some of you orange, I gave you some of mine." It seems to the observer that these people arguing are appealing to some standard of behavior, and you almost never find anyone replying, "To hell with your standard." Most often, you find the people on the defensive trying rather, to show that their actions really do fall in line with that standard, or that for some special circumstance, they are exempt from it. That standard I'm talking about is morality. Morality is the way humans SHOULD act, not that they always do, but that they should. However, people might say that morality actually does change, that in different societies, you find different morals. But that's wrong. Of course you'll find small, surface-level differences, but nothing that would add up to a complete difference. For example, societies might dispute on to whom you should be unselfish to, just your family, fellow countrymen, or everybody, but no society admires a man who puts himself first. Likewise, there is no society that admires a soldier running from battle. And no man is proud for double-crossing those that have been kindest to him. You might as well try and make a society where 2+2=5. And if between each people, there WAS a completely different set of morals, then what ground could we stand on to condemn what the Nazi's did? C.S Lewis says this, "What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair." I hope this is sufficient proof for objective morality, because I need to move on to the origin of objective morality. Objective morality can come from 2 places, either it was an evolutionary adaption that the human race has found most beneficial to the survival of our species, or it is a law that has "been written on our hearts" by God. This is why the first belief doesn't make sense: Let's say that it's right, that we, over millions of years found that this set of behaviors were beneficial to us a race. But where do it follow that we should follow the rules? Those arguing people I talked about believed that they SHOULD follow this, not just that it is self-beneficial. Doesn't it follow then that anyone who finds pleasure from raping women, or torturing little babies is only acting unfashionable? I mean, if we are a species that has only been around for a relatively short amount of time in the 13.8 billion years the universe has existed, and we are just over-evolved bacteria, no different from an armadillo, bats, or head lice, what compels us to still follow this moral law? And even if we felt compelled due to our ancestors' dispositions being inherited, we still have no good reason to keep following it. Therefore, I believe God is the best explanation of our objective moral law that all of us feel and are compelled by. With all this in mind, I believe God is the best explanation for reality. This may not have argued for Christianity specifically, I will do that in the next rounds, but seeing that Christianity is based around the existence of God, I thought it important to solidify that foundation. Sources: Mere Christianity, C.S Lewis, pg. 5