It is not reasonable to believe in God

"First off, I would like to say this to the voters. Please read the entire argument before voting instead of reading the topic and voting on the concept. " I am in full agreement with this statement. For everyone involved to get the most out of this debate, all arguments must be read, before voting for the position you find most supported by the arguments given. My opponent has provided, as evidence for the likelihood of God's existence, a version of the cosmological argument, that the origin of the universe makes God's existence likely. She also uses a minor form of the teleological argument, which posits an intelligent designer as the cause of the attributes of the universe. The Cosmological Argument My opponent begins by alluding to 3 possible origins of the universe: "1) The universe has always existed 2) The universe created itself 3) The universe was created by someone outside of the universe" However, I believe this to be a false dichotomy, in that there are two other possible ways to account for the origin of the universe: 4) The universe existed timelessly before the Big Bang. The Big Bang, an explosion that created all matter and space from a super-dense, lawless singularity, also created time. This means that, before the Big Bang, there was no time. We can conclude from this, then, that the Big Bang singularity timelessly caused the Big Bang to occur, from which time arose. Indeed, this must be a possibility, as God is said to have created the universe timelessly, otherwise He would need to have a beginning or be eternal. This means that the universe didn't so much begin to exist, as this would mean that there was time before the universe's existence, but that there simply was no time before the universe, and so didn't need to be created at all. 5) The universe is finite, but didn't have a beginning. The fact of the Big Bang Singularity has been called into question, because scientists have observed that the laws of physics break down near singularities, for instance near Black Holes, and because the Big Bang singularity is inferred by the tracing of world-lines backwards through time, something we can only do by inferring the uniformity of physical laws. This leaves open another possibility: that the universe shrinks the further we go backwards in time, but that the Big Bang singularity is never reached. In this case, the shrinking of the universe is without end, but nonetheless finite. Hence, the universe is like a cake being cut in half an infinite number of times; there will always be a remaining piece of the cake even though it constantly shrinks in size: first half a cake, then a quarter, then an eighth, and so on. If this is so, then the origin of the universe doesn't need an explanation, as every instant is accounted for by a past instant. Also, I don't see why (2) should be held to be impossible. For such a claim to be true, we don't need to posit the universe in its entirety. We need only, in fact, hold that two or more things can simultaneously cause each other, which might then give rise to the universe as a whole. Such simultaneous causation is observed in the universe; for instance, the gravitational attraction of one object can cause another object to move towards it, whilst the second object causes the first to move to it in a similar manner, like two meteors being thrown off of orbit by each other's gravitational force. Thus, such a beginning seems to be at least a logically possible state of affairs. The law of conservation doesn't seem to apply to the subatomic level, as there have been observed occurrences of "virtual particles" arising from spatial vacuums with any ultimate cause. "That's interesting, that's exactly what the Bible says Genesis 1:1 In the BEGINNING God created the Heavens and the earth" It doesn't seem very interesting, as many other religions profess the same thing, such as Judaism and Islam, whilst many more religions profess that the universe has always existed, such as the ancient Mayans. The Teleological Argument "Let's imagine I have a painting. Question: When you see a painting, what proof do you need to establish the fact that a painter exists? Nothing besides the painting itself. The painting itself is absolute proof that there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. The painting would not be there if the painter did not exist; and so it is with the universe. The existence of the universe [a giant painting if you will] itself proves absolutely that there is a creator." This seems an ambiguous claim. In what way is the universe like a painting? If it is like a painting because it is beautiful, then surely this beauty is subjective; someone may walk into any modern art gallery today and find a painting or sculpture which could have been produced by a giant explosion of pain or clay. A lot of things in the universe seem very ugly and not very artistic at all, so is this evidence against a creator? If the universe is like a painting because it exhibits patterns and order, then this can be accounted for by the laws of nature, which are the result of the proportions of matter and energy acting within space-time. For instance, the law of gravity can be explained by alluding to the curvature of space-time when it comes into contact with matter, and so needn't be given as evidence for a "painter". Finally, if the universe is like a painting, then is the "painter" of the universe like an actual painter: fallible, colluding with others to produce his masterpiece from pre-created substances? This would definitely tighten the analogy, but would go against the attributes given of at least the Christian God.