Science has rendered theism unreasonable

This is why I enjoy debating Envisage. I can always expect a challenging argument. Cheers to Pro for meeting expectations. According to the debate structure defined in round 1, I will only be given a rebuttal. I do not intend to make a positive case for theism in this debate. My role, as Con, is to show that none of Pro's arguments disprove theism. I will attempt to summarize Pro's arguments and address them in a point response methodology. I will state upfront that Pro and I agree on science, but not philosophy. I) The Universe Lacks A Cause My first contention is with Pro's claim that causes can only exist in B-Theory. There are both causes and effects in B-Theory. If there were not, we would not have a scientific method. Pro needs to clarify this statement as it is pivotal to the entire argument that the universe is uncaused. Pro claims that the quote came from William Lane Craig in his source citation. However, the source doesn't contain anything about the Kalam Cosmological argument. The real source of the quote isn't given by Pro. It actually comes from debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com which doesn't even mention Craig [1]. In reality, Craig is a huge supporter of the Kalam Cosmological Argument [2]. Pro's source shows Craig's support for B-Theory (see last paragraph). Furthermore, Pro claims, "Furthermore, space and time itself are likely describable in quantum mechanics (quantum gravity) given that time is likely another dimension, given this to be the case the laws of quantum mechanics allow for "spaces" and "times" to bubble and spontaneously appear." By doing so, Pro claims that there may be causes external to our space-time continuum that caused our universe to come into existence. If there are unknown causes for the creation of universes, then it stands to reason that the cause may be an intelligent supernatural being that meets the requirements for theism. The idea that such natural exist is speculative, thus whether they are natural or super natural is also unknown. The theist is just as reasonable to assume that these causes are supernatural as the naturalist is to assume these causes are natural. II) Quantum Eternity Theorem It isn't agreed upon that an infinitely old universe cannot be created. Thomas Aquinas conjectured how it could be done by the creatio continuans doctrine [4]. Thus there is no logical contradiction. If time is an emergent property, then it is by the law of nature that time emerges. It is generally believed by theists that G-d created the laws of nature. If this were not the case, then the fine tuning argument (which I am not presenting as a positive case for G-d) wouldn't exist [5]. Furthermore, if time is an emergent property, then what must exist for time to emerge, and how did such come into existence? III) G-d can not Interact with the Universe Pro claims, "G-d, being immaterial would not be able to interact with the universe as he will intrinsically lack these force-carriers." Pro made a mistake in citing source 10 which doesn't exist. Source 1 exists, but doesn't support his claim. I'm left with no backing sources to the claim that G-d, having super natural power over nature, would lack force-carriers. There is an assertion of opinion, but no real argument. Basically, the assertion Pro is making is that G-d would be incapable of causing miracles, because G-d has no force-carriers. A miracle can be defined as, "A surprising event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." By that definition (from Google search: define miracle [6]), G-d would not require a force-carrier to act inside of nature, because a miracle is not bound by the natural law that requires force-carriers. Pro has not shown that miracles are impossible. John Lennox, a professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford and world renown philosopher, has a lot to say about the possibility of miracles, especially in response to modern science [7, 8, 9, 10]. IV) Universe Does Not Require G-d I will agree that the universe does not require G-d, but I disagree that this indicate that G-d does not exist. I do not require a car to get to work, but I have been able to get to work by riding my bike. The fact that the universe does not require a G-d to create it is evidence that atheism is reasonable. It is not evidence that theism is unreasonable. A similar logical progression used by Pro can be turned on its head and used against atheism. P1. Supernatural creation of the universe is possible P2. If supernatural creation is possible, then the universe might have come from supernatural causes C. The universe might have come from supernatural causes Premise 1 is easy to prove. The super natural is not bound by the laws of nature, thus literally anything is possible including the universe in which we live. Premise 2 is obviously true. Many of the most well known scientists were deists [11, 12]. V) Conclusions Although Pro has solid science and cosmology, the philosophical arguments given by Pro don't stand to the exhaustive reason given by theists for their beliefs. Specifically, Pro has not given any reason to believe that G-d cannot affect nature/human fortunes, and Pro has not given overwhelming evidence that there was not a G-d involved in the creation of the universe. These were the two claims on which Pro built a case. I have maintained the resolution that science has not rendered theism unreasonable. Agnosticism is the logical default to a claim for which there is not yet evidence. As previously stated, I did not intend to build a case to show theism is reasonable in light of modern science, because I need not do so to show that it is not unreasonable. Pro continues to have the BoP. Post Script Because I have extra space, I thought it would be fun to point out that Pro claims that time came into existence at the Big Bang. The atheistic scientist he quotes, Sean Carroll, claims that this is not definitely the case [13, 14]. There was a debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig on the topic of cosmology where William Lane Craig provided rational reasons for the possibility of a creator [15]. Sean Carroll attempted to disagree with Craig on the grounds that the universe is eternal [14]. 1) http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com... 2) http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 3) http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 4) http://plato.stanford.edu... 5) http://biologos.org... 6) http://lmgtfy.com...) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) http://www.deism.com... 12) http://rationalwiki.org... 13) http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... 14) http://p2c.com... 15)