Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

Thank you Con for your opening argument and rebuttal. My opponent seemed focused on the Bible last round even though this debate is about theism as a whole. Nevertheless I will address those remarks first. A Trial: Con seen it fit to compare Adolph Hitler with the God of Genesis. This comparison is a poor example by my opponent. If my opponent takes written scriptures from the Bible as a reliable source then he has already accepted it as a historical account. This means he also accepts that God is the creator of man and being a creator, God had the right to destroy creations that stood against His will. Men lived in His house(earth), and they were subject to His rules, His conditions, and His penalties. God created man and Hitler did not. God had a level of authority that Hitler did not. The crimes of people on earth before the Flood are described as being extreme, and certainly deserving of death. Did the Jewish people commit extreme acts deserving of their fate? No. Do we not kill criminals who are deserving to this very day? Yes we do. This comparison is absurd. Con brings up allegations of Biblical genocide. My opponent does not address the Canaanites but instead brings up Sodom and Gomorrah which were cities and not nation's themselves. The definition given by Con does not live up to the allegations here. I provide scripture to this: 2 Peter 2:6, "if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." Fatally showing Sodom and Gomorrah were cities, not nations. Genocide cannot be considered here. I will address this further if my opponent wishes to continue this path. C1) God necessarily exist. C1A - Whatever begins to exist has a cause Con asserts my reasoning has fatal flaws but I think we will see it is his reasoning that has flaws. Con says the universe is more complex than my living room but this comparison isn't adequate. I can see and touch everything in my living room, I can test the objects in my living room. We cannot go in the reaches of space to test and touch the objects that dwell there. If we did, we may find that space is possible to be known and then becoming less complex, like my living room. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a principle that everything must have a reason for coming into existence.[1] Formally, the Principle states: For every fact F, there must be an explanation why F is the case. On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason[2], four classes of explanation fall under the principle’s rubric. Sufficient reason provides forms of perspective for the subject from the object(First cause). The object remains merely perceived in the mind. This means only experience and perception give one proof about God. We should use our priori intellectual experience and perception. It is possible to investigate the phenomena of experience as a source for new knowledge. If we ignore any possibility of gaining this knowledge from experience, we then ignore possible reality. I contend atheism ignores such realities. Con makes the mistake of thinking theism misrepresents the first law of Thermo Dynamics. Science has shown that our universe expanded(Big-Bang) and by the principle of sufficient reason, the expansion needs a cause. For appearance of this energy and matter supposedly from nothing, there had to be a cause outside time and physical space. This cause would not be directly inside physical space or time. Therefore the energy and matter did not come from nothing but a cause outside our physical understanding which is neither limited by matter nor time. This cause has all the properties we give God. Con claims the dense mass ball of matter needed no creator and I agree. I do not claim it was created but always existed. I claim it needs a cause to - Big Bang. Con claims that vacuum fluctuations show that matter can pop in and out of existence. "Vacuum Fluctuation Models did not outlive the decade of the 1980s. Not only were there theoretical problems with the production mechanisms of matter, but these models faced a deep internal incoherence."[3] These models give a infinite past, we should observe a very old universe but we observe one that is too young for these models.[4] Con suggest we should rely on a broken theory instead of possibly considering outside means. Furthermore Con says I am illogical to assume a sufficient cause(I call God), caused the universe. Even if God does not exist that does not leave atheism as more reasonable. C1B&C Con ask why, why is it impossible for a maximal great being to not exist? Well, a maximally great being has, among other properties, necessary existence. So if it exists in any world, it exists in all of them! Inference to the best explanation[5] means you have to find the best explanation from the data available. The best explanation for our universe is by design. Con quotes David Hume, well I will offer scientific quotes as well. Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater)2001 "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." Con mentions the Miller-Urey experiment(aka abiogenesis), as far as can be seen from the actual experimental work and knowledge, is not supportable from true science.[6] There is no reason for the rational person to accept assertions about abiogenesis, nor to consider the various abiogenetic theories as a reason to disbelieve in Creationism. C2 Morality Emotions ≠ morality. Con admits animal research for morality is a new approach. He then asserts animals surely have morals, I think he confuses morals for emotion. He has a very loose definition and it seems to make morals meaningless. Animals don't have enough logic thought to arrive at a moral conclusion.[7] Con offers nothing for atheism here. C2A Con ignores my comment about people having morality regardless if they know God or not. My contention implies we have a conscious for morality and it is because we have a higher conscious that morality comes from. Con never addresses this. Con makes the mistake by assuming I suggest we need God to tell us raping or killing is wrong, not so. I said we were created by God and we reflect His morality and therefore we consider morality through Him. Conclusion: Let's go over what I have shown and what Con has shown. I have shown our minds can reveal God. I have shown that a mind is the most likely reason the universe and its complex nature, exist. Science recognizes the universe has order and design. Con did not offer anything to defend atheism. Con has not shown any moral base for atheism. We have more than enough reason to think a higher cause exist and Con has not shown any reason that is unreasonable. Con has shown his unreasonableness in this debate already by flat out denying that proposal. Thank you back to Con. Sources: [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] Isham, "Creation of the Universe," pp. 385-87. [4] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [5] http://www.informationphilosopher.com... [6] http://www.studytoanswer.net... [7] http://www.patheos.com...