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

“ If the universe were eternal, it would be static and unmoving.”Again, this is a conclusion based on deductive reasoning. Pro cannot discount the possibility that it has only recently begun to expand, and that the universe used to be static, 5, 10 billion years ago. No one can. The universe having a beginning is derived from deductive reasoning from the evidence of an expanding universe, the same deductive reasoning that leads us to believe that the universe, in its beginning, was a singularity. Again, Pro is using evidence to both reject and accept the conclusion made by scientists.“If there was a singularity at the very beginning of time which resulted in the big bang, it would have no reason to explode and create the universe.”Again, argument from ignorance. Because Pro cannot think of a reason, therefore he is claiming that the belief that a God must have moved it. Again, logical fallacy. “Additionaly, there could have been no energy build-up that started infinitesimally small unless there was an outside force acting on it or the singularity, itself, had a beginning."Let us ask Pro, how does he know this? No one is claiming that it did, since this is just one of many possibilities. However, Pro has made the claim that this cannot happen. Therefore, I ask Pro to give his evidences or reason behind this claim.“But one more cannot be added to an infinite number. Hence, one can never reach an infinite number.”Pros argument breaks down with the fact that Pro himself accepts a God that has a quality that pertains to its existence as being eternal, infinite. Let us ask Pro, why eternity can apply to God but not to the universe?“Yes, people have believed in contradictory gods, but the fact that people have always been searching for God or gods shows that there is reason to do so.”The fact that people have found contradictory Gods, shows what, exactly? Pro has us believe that the search for God gives us reason to believe that God exists, but wants us to ignore the conclusion of that search. Unreasonable at best.“One of them could be correct and all the others wrong.”I cannot comment on this until Pro comments on the Quran, as I can easily show how the standards applied to the bible can also be applied to the Quran, thus preventing us from discerning which is correct.“If He creates beings, don't you think He would love them as if they were His own children?”How does Pro know that God created this universe with the intent of creating us as well? This is an unproven premise that, for example, Deists reject. Therefore this argument fails.“Christians don't claim that the numerous translations and copies are error-free, only that the original texts were inerrant.”Unfortunately this claim cannot be confirmed. What we know as fact, however, allows us to doubt the texts, as none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, at least 30 years after Jesus died, with many early church fathers being excommunicated or banished due to their support of books that contradicted the 4 Gospels. In light of these facts, it is still unreasonable for Atheists to believe that the bible is in any way accurate. “Not all scholars agree that the Torah was written that early. ”Daniel, the protagonist for the Book of Daniel, is accepted by Christian scholars to have existed around 6th century BCE. Both Deut 31:26 and Josh 24:26 talks of a book of law, which does not make it a historical account, and 1 Sam 10:25 speaks of Samuel writing down the rights and duties of a king, not any historicity.So, we know it was compiled after 500 BC allowing for them to add or delete any inconsistencies, none of the examples you provided talk of the actual writing of the historical accounts, and they all, even if they did talk of the historicity of the Jews, confirm that they were written by Jews. Therefore my objection stands.“Time travelers cannot be used as evidence of fulfilled prophecies, especially since there is no proof time travel will ever be possible.”Exactly. There is no evidence that prophecies are necessarily revealed by God, just like there is no evidence that time travellers are not the source of the prophecy.. You do not have any evidence as to the source of the prophecy and therefore cannot claim the source to be God.“Jesus came through the bloodline of King David”The genealogy is through Joseph. Jesus was not Joseph's son therefore he cannot be of King Davids bloodline. Clearly an unfulfilled prophecy.“We do have eyewitness accounts of Jesus, such as Josephus (a Jewish historian) and Pliny the Younger.”Only to the existence of a man named Jesus, not the events in his life. Josephus only talks about the existence of Jesus and Pliny talks only of Christians. Nor is Josephus or Pliny, both born after Jesus died, eyewitnesses to anything.No one is saying that Jesus never existed or that Christians never existed. But none of this is confirmation as to the events of the bible itself.“What better way to prove the President lives in the White House than to look in the White House?”And if the president just happened to be away? If you saw a janitor living there, and called him the president, would your claim be valid? How would you be able to prove that the president was actually living there and not just visiting?The reason why we cannot simply use a single book to corroborate itself, has to do with confirming that the evidence is valid, and not simply asserting that the evidence is valid. Can we look at a Spiderman comic and conclude that Spiderman must have existed? According to Pro's criterion, yes, we could use the Comic book to prove the claims within the comic is true. Yet, clearly, this is not the case. The only way to confirm that the claim is true, is to use outside sources, because its a given that internal sources will confirm itself to be true.“The Gospels were eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry by people who either knew him or were acquainted with people who knew him.”Its not an eyewitness account, its hearsay. All of the gospels are anonymous, we have no signed copies. They were all written well after Jesus died.So, we have little to no idea who the authors are, they are not eyewitnesses and are only reporting hearsay, and they were all written after Jesus died. Hearsay evidence would not hold up in a court of law(1), let alone 30 year old hearsay evidence, therefore it is unreasonable for Atheists to accept.“Moses gave us the Law which had many things in it that were sinful, including a number of sexual sins. Even if some accepted it back then it was still wrong.”I am talking about the things that were acceptable, not sinful. One thing that was acceptable was the rape and forceful marriage of any woman from a town your army conquered, and this wasn;t just accepted by “Some”, it was accepted by the vast majority. Again, in light of this fact, my opponents argument fails, and once again, the natural explanation suffices.“Even if morals are simply "evolutionary" and not directly granted by God, you have shown no reason that God didn't simply direct the evolutionary process and use evolution to deliver our morality. ”This is still just an argument from ignorance(2).There is no evidence or reason that God didnt direct evolution.Therefore, God did direct evolution.“There wasn't anything preventing people 2,000 years ago from accessing this morality and many did.”God and Moses seemed unable to, as Deut 21:10 is Moses specifically allowing the forceful marriage and rape of women, a law which Moses claims God has passed down. Clearly many, many more did not. So, is God and Moses, immoral?Furthermore, let us ask Pro to name these moral giants. So, who, 2000 years ago, rejected the moral standard that Raping captives of war was wrong?Source:1. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...