It is not reasonable to believe in God

I will begin with a rebuttal of my opponent's counter-objections: Cosmological Argument 4) "This option would fall under the second category. If it existed timelessly, it has always existed. And I have already disproved this theory in the previous argument." This seems to me a misinterpretation of my point. To say that something exists timelessly is different to saying that it has existed for an infinite amount of time. I'm saying that there was no time before the Big Bang singularity, and so that it neither began in time, nor existed for an infinite amount of time. To say that something "begins to exist", means that there was a time at which it didn't exist, but there is no such time before the Big Bang, and so didn't begin to exist. Hence, the universe is finite, but there was no time before the universe, and so it didn't require a cause because it didn't arise out of a previous time. Think of it this way: God is supposed to have created the universe, and with it time itself. But which category does God fall into? God couldn't have always existed, because God created time itself. If God caused Himself to exist, then why is it impossible for the universe to do so? If God was created by another being, then that being must have been created by another, and so on to absurdity. This shows that my opponent's three categories cannot be the only options. Even though I don't know in which way the universe came about, I know that positing God isn't a valid explanation. 5) "This option is once again impossible. The earth is falling apart. So that means it has to end. Anything that ends and that is finite, has to have a beginning." I don't see why it's impossible. As I have shown, this wouldn't mean that the universe is infinite, as the universe would shrink over a number of infinitesimal time slices. You only say that having an end entails having a beginning because you don't believe it possible for something to be finite but without a beginning. Why is that? Also, my objection to the impossibility of (2) stands, and the cosmological argument doesn't necessarily show that the supposed "cause" of the universe is a personal or supernatural entity. Teleological Argument The argument presented by my opponent in the second round is a more thoroughly argued one than in the first round, but still objectionable. "Design is not hard to recognize. This amazing complexity that permeates all of life is another reason why more and more scientists are concluding an intelligent designer must exist." That design is "not hard to recognize" is a value judgement, dependent on the likelihood of life coming about due to chance and the laws of nature. However, this is a calculation that we simply cannot make, as it involves working out how likely it would be for certain features of life to come about given events that happened millions of years ago. However, we have lots of evidence that such alterations did happen, and a theory to show how this happened. The theory is very complicated, and the evidence quite subtle, though nonetheless compelling, so I will only be able to give a brief outline of both. The Theory of Evolution The theory of Natural Selection by random mutation and other evolutionary processes (Random drift, horizontal genetic transfer, sexual selection, etc...) states that animals inherit certain properties from their parents or originators. This process, however, is imperfect, leading to mutations, some beneficial, some fatal, though most are harmless. Because some of these mutations confer a greater chance of survival, and thus reproduction, these beneficial mutations are passed down to a greater extent than the others, because more offspring with the mutation survive. Because of this, the beneficial mutations amass, creating very complex features, most of which work either independently or in assembly with other structures to a beneficial end, (By definition of the mutations that survive in the gene pool). Because these mutations seem beneficial and unlikely, at first glance they seem to need design, which is the best way we know for producing such objects. However, at the time these mutations were formed, they were purposeless, having occured by chance, and not that unlikely, as these mutations are vast in number, but, as stated before, survive only if they are beneficial. This has been shown to be a good explanation as to things, such as the eye, can form, the evolution of which has been traced extensively: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com... What evidence is there for the occurrence of evolution? To answer this would be a debate in itself, but very briefly, I will give several lines of evidence. - Vestigial Features. These are features that no longer serve a function or purpose that they did in the past, such as deep sea creatures that have grown flaps of skin over otherwise functional eyes, or the defunct leg-bones in certain snakes: http://www.talkorigins.org... - Atavisms. These are characteristics that are no longer possessed by the animal, but is nonetheless stored in their genetic makeup, that resurface occasionally for no real reason. Such atavisms show a genetic history of the animal, and instances of atavisms include tails in humans, and instances of extra toes in horses: http://www.talkorigins.org... - Transitional Forms. There are many instances of transitional forms in the fossil record, such as those showing the link between reptiles and birds (http://www.talkorigins.org...), fish and tetrapods (http://www.talkorigins.org...), and humans and old-earth apes (http://www.talkorigins.org...). "Because of this and other reasons, there is a growing list of people that are starting to be skeptical to the theory of Darwinism and evolution. On February 21, 2006 the headlines read: "500 Doctoral Scientists Skeptical of Darwin." This is the statement to which these scientists are attaching their names: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."" This sounds like an impressive number at first, though several skeptical considerations have to be taken into account. Firstly, the statement is strangely ambiguous and open to interpretation. All scientists are skeptical about evolution to the extent that there is a tiny possibility that it is wrong. Because of this, the second statement, and possibly the first, could be accepted by most scientists if put forth in the right guise. Furthermore, "darwinism" might be taken as evolutionary theory before neodarwinism, or the "modern evolutionary synthesis". Finally, many of the scientists on the list have PhD's unrelated to biology, such as "astrophysics", or even "philosophy". The fact that pre-darwinian scientists believed in a designer isn't surprising, given the commonality or religion and ostracism of heretics at the time. Final Thoughts Based on my last debate, I would like to end by rebutting the Argument from Faith, the idea that faith is a good reason for belief. Faith isn't a good reason for believing in God for the same reason having faith in the slot-machines, after losing half your money, isn't a good reason for trying again. For a belief to be reasonable, it has to be likely for that belief to be true, but we can only know this given evidence that makes the belief likely. This causal relationship is the foundation of proper belief, as otherwise it would be reasonable to believe that your money will be refunded by the slot-machine sometime soon, even though this becomes less likely every time you pull the lever.