Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

RESOLUTION: Theism is more reasonable than Atheism Burden of Proof In this debate I showed that theism is more reasonable than atheism. Con did not assume the burden of showing atheism more reasonable than theism. In this debate I offered two main contentions as to why theist are more reasonable than atheist. C1) God necessarily exist. C1A - Whatever begins to exist has a cause "I will try to explain quickly, for every entity X, if X exists, then there’s an explanation for why X exists. " Yes that is correct. But, then when one goes back you will finding a never ending cycle and the cycle must end because the universe had a beginning and the only thing that ends that cycle is a first uncaused cause. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle were, in fact, seen as twin targets by detractors. According to their interpretations of quantum mechanics, there is no fundamental reality, just a prescription for calculating experimental results. There is no way to say what the state of a system fundamentally is, only what the result of observations might be. Some experiments within the first decade of the twenty-first century have cast doubt on how extensively the uncertainty principle applies. . http://en.wikipedia.org... C1B - The Ontological ArgumentThe Ontological argument starting with premises that do not depend on experience for justification and it proceeds by logical means to a conclusion that God exists. Con ignores this argument. C1C - The Teleological Argument"Are you really arguing that the universe is as simple as the things you can touch and feel in your living room? " If one is capable of researching the universe as they can things on earth then yes the universe would become less complex. Intelligent design offers a consistent explanation for observed data from all life. This model is based off empirical testing and scientific reasoning. The atheistic model cannot offer better alternative explanations for our order and design. C2) God is necessary for morality This would mean there is no code of ethics that is universally valid, it simply would be about how we feel or what we decide. [8] By the atheistic view we have no order and therefore have no reason to have morality separate from other animals. C2A. Atheism has no basis"I will ask again, if god, any god, can commit an act I see as immoral, this shows that I do not need that god to give me morality. " You have not shown any immoral act yet. All you have done is express your moral standard without any logic behind it. "Morality has evolved and in some ways is embedded into our genetics. " This is what I contend. How can it be ingrained in us without someone ingraining it in us. If no one did then we would just develop morals throughout life and have no reason to love or find acts immoral unless taught too. My opponent admits it is in genetics. Until my opponent addresses this point and offers an atheistic moral process, I will leave this point where it lies. C2B. Theism has a basisAs I have shown above, we have much reason to believe a maximum great being exist and with Him comes a maximum great goodness. Theism gives explanation for why we as human beings have certain moral behaviors ingrained. From the atheistic side we are just animals and we make moral decisions as animals would. A Trial:"What logical sense does that make? Does that mean if I built a house for someone else to live in, and three years into their living it in I can take a bulldozer to it? If you think so, then again I question your source of morality…" You are putting men on equal ground with God. We should think about as so: If we had a herd of cattle(cows), do we think of them as humans? They have their use and we care for them but consider them equal. As so God does think the same about humans. If we had cattle that was infectious to the other cattle would we not separate them from the healthy? I think we would. "A mother can kill her child simply because she is the mother; she gave birth and thus life to it? " You are still putting people on a equal footing with God and they are not. "Eugenics, even if it’s done for a good reason, it’s still eugenics and still immoral. " My explanation above with the cows shows that ridding the flock of infectious cows can be moral. “As I pointed out reason for the act committed does not play into the definition of the act itself, eugenics. " This is simply semantics. My opponent wants us to believe because I have given reason how a act we consider immoral can be moral that it is still immoral because we think it is. Nonsense. There is a perfectly good reason to eliminate peoples who infect the other people. "What is not true about Gomorrah being a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history? " My opponent simply is not recognizing that Sodom and Gomorrah had the same language, culture, ethnicity, descent, as many surrounding cities. Those cities even went further in history than Sodom and Gomorrah. They were cities within a whole nation. "so you are saying that it was moral for god to destroy everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah? How can the intentional mass murder of anyone, for anything, anywhere, at any time, by any being (supernatural or not) be moral, how can any of that be right? The morality of anyone who says it is forgivable to mass murder must be questioned. " Yes it was moral and if you remember Abraham pleaded for the cities but not even five righteous was found. You obviously you have not been in war or been in a situation were people are killers and rapist and were no negation is possible. I guess you leave them alive to later kill you and your family. "As you can see, if something in science does not fill in all the blanks and all the questions, science does not simply give up. " My opponent suggests those that believe in God, just gives up logic and science. I never claimed no such thing. To have logic we look for answers to problems and Con want us to stay in no man land hoping we find the answers. My opponent has no shown that atheism is more reasonable then theism. Thank you Con.