Is it reasonable to believe in a God

1. God as first cause Is it more reasonable to suggest that everything that comes into existence must have a cause? I say the human experience shows us that we know that everything that exists has a cause, we know this. It is not the God of the gaps, we actually know that everything has a cause. Check out the law of cause and effect. The big bang theory shows us that the universe did have a beginning in the finite past. My opponent can jump around but he needs to give us an example of something that does not have cause for his position to be more reasonable. So in essence the question is which is more reasonable to believe from what we do know of the universe? That things pop into existence totally without a cause and totally out of nothing or do we experience the law of cause and effect? For my opponents position to be more reasonable he needs to give an example of something that popped into existence, and totally without a cause. He has not done so yet. As for infinite regress into the past, that defies the big bang theory itself and my opponent finds himself on the fringe of reason. No one believes in a created God, no one stated there was a created God, Deists believe in an eternal God, that transcends time, space and matter. If something transcends time ie God. You cannot attach the label created, began, etc etc because those terms are subject to time. So the statement about infinite regress is fallacious as it changes the very definition of God. So essentially I ask you the question, is it more reasonable to believe that everything came into existence totally without a cause, totally out of nothing and for no reason at all? 2. Information and design We marvel at the space shuttle and the hundreds of minds involved and information that created a space shuttle, yet the human cell is more complex than a space shuttle in regards to information, DNA and design. Is it reasonable to suggest that the space shuttle just created itself with no external designer or mind involved? BANG it just existed in all its complexity, is this truly a reasonable statement to make about a space shuttle? Why would you then say that something far more complex than a space shuttle had no design? Look at the human cell sometime, thousands of them fit onto the end of a sewing needle, with more information in one cell than a space shuttle. Is this truly a reasonable theory? We know that information requires a mind, we don't think that the dictionary BANG popped into existence without any author? This is not a reasonable statement. Your very own DNA if it were written down, would have enough information to fill a stack of books to the moon and back 11 times, is it reasonable from what we know to say that this information came from nowhere, no one "wrote" it. I suggest it is far more reasonable to say information had a author. 3. Moral Standard I would like to know if my opponent thinks that raping, torturing and maiming little children just for fun is always morally wrong? Just to clarify, when i say ALWAYS I mean, in every culture, in all of time, in all places and no matter what anyone else says. Is it always wrong to rape and torture babies for fun? If it is we have a absolute moral law, just one will be enough to require a moral "prescriber" I would ask my opponent who or what that prescriber is? Is it the state? Is it a world consensus? Is it majority rules? Just so I do not create a strawman argument and tear it down, I would like my opponent to answer this moral question above clearly. Is it always wrong to rape and torture babies for fun?