Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

C1: My opponents’ reasoning has a fatal flaw. “Objects don't pop into existence. They begin and end in a series of causes and effects.” While this may seem like common sense in everyday world, the universe is more complex than just your living room implies. The first law of Thermo Dynamics [1] clearly states that Energy can be neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed and transferred in an isolated system, which the universe is the very definition of [2]. This means that energy itself has no cause and no beginning; you misinterpret this to mean that it cannot be created naturally. You are wrong it cannot be created at all; to say otherwise is to call ignorance supernatural and you might as well believe that nebulas are made of pixie dust. Due to mass–energy equivalence, as expressed in general relativity, this means that the singularity (infinitely dense ball of matter) needed nether a creator, nor to even be created. As for the universe itself, it was created from vacuum which is also its current state. According to quantum theory (best idea as of right now), the apparently inert vacuum is not really empty at all, in fact matter (and even antimatter) “pop into” and out of existence within vacuums, known as vacuum fluctuations. [7] [11]. Your argument that God necessarily exists is a lack of understanding of proper physics, thus you have yet to show proof. As for how the singularity got there to begin with, there are a number of theories of which I have not the time to explain, but simply put even if these theories are wrong labeling ignorance god is not a logical statement. C1B&C Why? “4. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world.” To this “Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.” David Hume has a few words to say that I will not rob him of here “A very small part of this great system, during a very short time, is very imperfectly discovered to us; and do we thence pronounce decisively concerning the origin of the whole?” Also, to support this argument you must prove that Complexity implies design. The author of the citation hinted slightly at this but did not seem aware of a 1952 experiment called Miller–Urey experiment, where it was shown that conditions on the primitive earth was preferential for creation of organic compounds from inorganic matter, Amino acids, which is what DNA is based on. C2 Morality You make yet another fatal flaw, in your understanding of morality and its presence in animals seems to be lacking. Animals surely experience morals. [3] This is a relatively new subject that I am not entirely astute at just yet, however there are quite a few books and journals regarding these phenomena. [12] C2A I could write a book on this, but thankfully there have already been a few. [4][5] I cannot express how immoral I feel it is it is to think that raping and killing children could only be wrong if there is a god that says so. That statement itself is a proof that a moral truth can be held without god. You obviously believe you need god to tell you that raping and killing children is wrong and you do not see the moral issue with that belief, I however do. I did not need a god to show me how to see your belief as immoral. If god is the moral authority, he must have moral superiority. I will show here that god does not have moral authority. We can think of this as a sort of trial of god, with his own inspired works to serve as historical narrative. Here we entertain the thought that god is real and his actions are documented in the bible. A Trial: Genesis (The First Eugenics) Eugenics a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits [10] Noah, a descendant of the first man Adam, was a lone "righteous" man I the eyes of god. Corruption had spread through the generations and created a hostile environment and corrupt earth. Noah was instructed to build an ark to house the last of humanity (Noah’s family) and 2 of each creature. He then flooded the earth, killing every living creature he deemed was corrupted. God killed every being he deemed having less desirable traits (corruption) to promote the reproduction of those he saw as having more desirable traits, the first act of Eugenics. We can see parallel in the actions of god with a familiar being of recent history: God believed the earth had become violent, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream. These had to be removed quickly (An interpretation of Genesis 6:13 through the lens of eugenics.) Hitler believed the nation had become weak, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream. These had to be removed quickly. Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power. These two beings committed the same atrocities (granted different reasons) and we deem Hitler and his NAZI eugenics program evil/ immoral, we must label God the same as well by comparison and thus both are immoral beings. The An Act of Genocide Genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. [8] Nation is: a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. [9] According to the definition, genocide has occurred when such conditions are met; reason is not one of the conditions for an act to be genocide. Even if the act was a punishment and intentions were righteous, it would still qualify via criteria met as genocide. Sodom and Gomorrah citizens shared at least culture (since the whole of the people, save for the Sodomite Lot, had been corrupt, a corrupt culture is still a culture), & more than likely since this was a large permanent settlement, the majority shared descent and a history, making them a national group. The definition of nation clearly grants Sodom and Gomorrah the title. If nothing else the act of genocide on Gomorrah alone (where no one was spared) is reason enough to call god immoral/ evil. If god can commit an act we deem as immoral today, would that not be an example our own ability to create a moral framework for ourselves? If we can conjure this ability within us, what need do we have of god to deliver it? Conclusion: You have not shown that god probably exists. Science actually is contradictory to your premise, [6] that universe had a designer. Rational theism is an oxymoron, as theism neither has neither logic nor reason to support it. I have shown in my brief arguments that god has, through the eyes of modern man and our level of moral certitude, acted in an immoral fashion. This would implicate god as a being not bound by the perfections of moral superiority. If god can do something that we concede is immoral, then that means we have created the moral standard to be used, which means that we do not get our moral compass from any god. So why would we need this being at all? To the resolution of the debate Theism is NOT more reasonable than Atheism since it makes assumptions of a deity’s existence that has not a logical basis. [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [2] http://rationalwiki.org... [3] http://www.oup.com... [4] The Moral Landscape - Sam Harris [5] The Blank Slate – Stephen Pinker [6] The Blind Watchmaker – Richard Dawkins [7] Immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space - William J. Kaufmann [8] Funk, T. Marcus (2010). Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court [9] World Book Dictionary [10] American Sociological Review 389,397 [11] Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle [12] Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (a text book!)