Atheists are not logically and reasonably justified in their disbelief of a Christian God

“ In order for a universe to be created where there was nothing, there must have been a Being who created it, since something cannot be produced by nothing. ” Yes. There was a point at which the current state of the universe did not exist, and then it did. However, my opponent is wrong in claiming that there was nothing before the universe. Scientists believe that a singularity existed before the current state of the universe. (1) This would open up the possibility that this singularity had existed for an eternity and therefore does not require a cause. It was not merely “Nothing” as we know it, that existed before our current state of the universe. “As created beings, we are contingent upon that which created us. God is a Necessary Being, the First Cause of everything. “ We cannot conclude by this that the creator was necessarily God. A universe-creating factory or invisible magical unicorns or anything else that we would not consider God-like could have been the necessary creating force. In fact, calling it a “being” is presumptuous. “Moral relativism is a self-defeating belief, for in order to be true it must also be false(if there is no truth, as relativism claims, once might follow up by asking, is that a true statement? ) “ Moral relativism has to do with moral standards, and not truth claims in and of themselves, such as Logical truth claims. Pro is not discussing relativism in general. One can believe in Moral relativism and still believe in truth claims as long as those claims are not based on morality. “Yet how can we know, instinctually, what is right from wrong unless there is a Moral Law Giver? ” Quite simple. All social creatures have a basic understanding that killing within their group is wrong. (2) It comes from the simple realization that a group cannot exist if its members freely kill each other. The fact that this instinctual knowledge of right and wrong exists in some animals but not in others, is more evidence that this is something that is derived from common sense and nature, and not from a moral law giver. When we outline the method, step by step, as to how these morals could evolve, it becomes quite simple. 1. I don't want to die. 2. Being in a group is more beneficial. 3. I have no need to kill anyone in my group. 4. Therefore lets make this a rule. “And who would be qualified to give a Moral Law for all humanity to follow other than a Being who created that race of beings? ” First of all, the existence of a moral law does not tell us anything about where it came from. We cannot conclude that because a moral law exists, that therefore it must have come from God. Secondly, the existence of a different set of moral standards disproves this argument. Almost everyone today will say, with generally high certainty, that slavery is morally wrong. Yet, there is no doubt that in the past, people have believed that there was nothing morally wrong with owning people as property, I. e. Slaves. This is true in a lesser degree in the examples Pro stated. The farther back we go, the less the constraints as to who you are allowed to kill, even who you are allowed to rape, go. “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. “-Numbers 31:14-18 Most people today would say that rape under any circumstance was wrong. Yet clearly Moses did not think so. This shows how moral standards have varied largely with time and contradicts Pros argument. “1. There are things which are obviously wrong (e. g. rape and murder). 2. There must be an objective moral truth, or there would be no reason to keep your word, or to do good at all. 3. Therefore, only a Being who created us can create a Moral Law for all humankind to follow. “ I have shown above that the first premise has failed in the light of previous moral standards. The third point fails for the fact that we cannot know the source of this moral law, and cannot conclude if it came from God. I will quickly address the second premise. There is a reason to keep your word or to do good. The more we do good to others, the more likely they will do good to us, and it helps us keep a social norm that benefits us all. We see this in other animals, such as when Monkeys groom each other. Why bother grooming another monkey? So that they will groom you in return. “Paintings need a painter, buildings need a builder. The universe is much more vast and complex than a simple painting or even a building, so if a painter or builder is a given when viewing a painting or building, so is it a given that an intelligent being must have created this universe. “ Wrong. Let me systematically show why this argument fails. First off, we do not create, we manipulate. Humans do not “Make” a painting in the same way that this God “Made” the universe. We take existing matter, and manipulate it into paintings and buildings. To claim that the creation of this universe ex nihilo can be concluded from the existence of manipulators manipulating pre-existing matter is a non-sequitur. Secondly, We know that paintings and buildings were made, a posteriori. We have examples of painters and builders. We have knowledge that Painters and builders make paintings and buildings all the time and no examples of paintings and buildings occurring in nature. The problem exists when we compare two things, a painting and a rock, and try to consider which has a designer, and which occurred naturally. It is completely reasonable to assume that a rock was not designed, and was a product of nature. Yet, if we draw out the argument that Pro is making to its logical conclusion, then the rock must have been designed and must be no different than the painting. The very fact that we are justified in recognizing the rock as being a product of nature, shows how this argument fails. Thirdly, the conclusion is self-refuting. This God is supposedly more complex than the universe, yet does not require a creator. So by Pros own admission, something that is complex can exist without requiring a creator. “The world and universe we live in has been incredibly fine-tuned for our survival. “ No, not the universe. 99.99999999999% of the universe is hostile to life. Humans cannot live in the sun, or out in space. We cannot easily live on other planets. Yes, this planet is suited for life, but not the universe in general. This single planet that occupies less than .00000000001% of the entire universe Is fine tuned for life, yet Pro has us think that therefore the entire universe, hostile to life, must also be fine tuned for life as well. This is a non-sequitur. “In order for our kind to survive, it must be in the "Goldilocks Zone" of its galaxy, in other words the perfect spot where the planet would not be too hot or too cold. “ The “Goldilocks zone” for Earth is 120,000,000 kilometres wide, enough to fit 10,000 earths side by side. Furthermore, we have already found a planet other than earth that is in the “Goldilocks zone”. (3) So the tuning isn’t too fine after all. “Plus, the world has to have a habitable atmosphere “ The habitable atmosphere came after life arose. Before life, the atmosphere was hostile, and oxygen was scarce(4). In other words, Life came before a habitable atmosphere, not after. "the galaxy around it can't be too hostile" Except that extinction-level evets have occurred frequenty(5). Clearly there is no justification for atheists to believe in God. Source:1. . http://ssscott.tripod.com... 2. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 3. . http://news.cnet.com... 4. . http://www.ux1.eiu.edu... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...