Is it reasonable to believe in a God

1. Vacuums are not nothing, if we ask any physicist they will agree vacuums are not nothing. I think my opponent has disregarded the very well established big bang theory. Time, space and matter had a beginning, if that is the case then where or when would we put this vacuum? Time is essentially being theorized as a fourth dimension. Time, space and matter are not "no things" they are very real and "somethings" These are all red herrings tho. I am arguing from what we know, that is the law of cause and effect. It is more reasonable to believe in this law of cause and effect than to argue from something we dont know or better put what my opponent is presupposing. He is simply presupposing there is no cause for quantum physics without explaining why there is no cause. It appears to be circular reasoning. In stating quantum physics has no cause, would be essentially saying he knows this but doesnt know why he knows this, that is not very reasonable. Given vacuums are not "no things" due to the fact we need somewhere to put them (space) they need to exist at some point of time, is it more reasonable to suggest that things pop into existence totally out of "no things" and totally without a cause? 2. Again my opponent is presupposing the universe has no purpose, that is circular reasoning. He brushed off the copious amounts of information in a simple cell or DNA and we all know information comes from one source and intelligent mind or being of some sort. Is it more reasonable to believe information comes from nothing or it comes from a mind. Does our human experience show us that information comes from nothing or that it comes from and intelligent source of some kind whatever that may be? My opponent has failed to address the argument of information, it is invulnerable to Darwinian attack as a simple living cell was the first organism according to Darwinian Evolution. If that is the case, then there is more information in that one cell than a space shuttle. My opponent misses my argument if he disregards this using Darwinian Evolution. Again I ask is it more reasonable from what we know to suggest that information in that first cell, came from nowhere? No intelligence? Or is it more reasonable to say "well information does most usually comes from an intelligence of some kind" Even Richard Dawkins concedes this point http://www.youtube.com... 3. My opponent missed my argument about a "prescriber" I agree rape and torture occurs, that is descriptive. My opponent concedes that its wrong. By what standards can he say its wrong? What if the entire universe said it was right, would it then become right? I want my opponent to answer if its ALWAYS wrong no matter what ANYONE says? The moment he says that, is the moment a moral absolute exists in his world view. Please answer the question, is it ALWAYS wrong to rape and torture babies for fun? I don't believe my opponent has the unbiased skills to answer that question clearly, he has jumped around with things like "that's not how it is" which i agree but that's merely descriptive of what we see, I want to know who prescribes, who says its ALWAYS wrong? The state? The world consensus? What if they all said it was right to rape and torture babies for fun, would it still be wrong? If you ought to (prescription) NEVER torture and rape babies for fun, no matter what ANYONE says, then that requires a "prescriber" of some sort. I think its more reasonable to say that it is always morally wrong to torture and rape babies for fun is always wrong no matter what anyone says, if this is the case we have a moral absolute. No matter what part of the universe, no matter if everyone says its ok, it will always be wrong...