It is reasonable to believe that God exists

Ontological Argument "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." - Jeremiah 1:5 You contradict yourself when you say free will and fore-knowledge can coexist. If one were to know absolutely what I were to do tomorrow, and that I will never be potent enough to change my actions contrary to the fore-knowledge, then it is evident that I do not have free will. I am predestined to do whatever it is that I am known to do. Moreover, if the god is able to "sanctify" and "ordain" a person before he is even made in the womb, then it is evident that this person will not have free will, as his actions are already known to be holy enough to be a prophet. You will never convince me or anyone reasonable that omniscience and omnipotence can coexist within the powers of one being. It's inherently contradictory, and thus, a perfect being in all aspects cannot exist. Cosmological Argument You're right, I am open to the possibility that the universe does have a cause, but there are also scientific theories that there was a material universe prior to the big bang and it just so happens that it collapsed and began anew. Both are a possibility, but as a skeptic, I'm not to believe either case until demonstrable and evident proof can be given. Therefore, when asked upon whether or not the universe has a cause, I'm unable to give such information because of I simply do not know for sure. Also, if one were to suggest that the universe has a cause, it is their burden to absolutely and demonstrably prove such a case to us and prove all other cases such as the multiverse theory, pocket universe theory, and chaotic inflation theory wrong, and until then, me or anyone reasonable should not believe in any case. Immaterial "it would have had to exist before it existed..." ok... I do not see the logic of your contradiction because it is incredibly vauge. Moreover, I will still continue to abide to my original reason why the creator cannot be immaterial - In the sense that I have never seen an event without a cause, in the same sense, I have never seen anything immaterial create something material, and until you can objectively prove otherwise, I cannot and will not change my position, nor should anyone reasonable. And indeed, if god truly exists, then it should be of ease to prove that miracles and contradiction to physical laws can occur. A conscious "Then how is it going to make the decision to create or not create?" Creation of an object is independent of a conscious; a conscious does not need to be present for matter to be created. When winds blow a Tragopogon dubius plant and its seeds fall onto the ground, and rain and sunshine is present, there will indeed grow another Tragopogon dubius plant, and voila. No "effective cause" is needed to create something. It is possible that the universe had already existed prior due to other scientific theories, therefore it is also possible that material had existed before the big bang, therefore, it is also possible that a material cause without an efficient cause, caused the beginning of space and time in our universe. Non-Physical Mind "We can also apply Occam's Razor to the argument" Occam's razor states that a claim with the smallest amount of assumptions is USUALLY the correct one. Notice how it's not an absolute rule, but a suggestion. However improbable, my claims are still viable, and you cannot use occam's razor to "prove" that my claims are false. Therefore, I still abide to the possibility that there can be several non-physical minds. "There could be numberous causes" If you are arguing the case for an immaterial, omnipotent, conscious creator (notice how specific that is), and use the cosmological argument to lay the foundation for such a being, and the proceed to say, "well, in the sense of the cosmological argument, there could be numerous causes," then your foundation for such a specific being has already fallen apart, and therefore your cosmological argument is not viable for the creator you're trying to prove. Morality My opponent clearly does not know the definitions of objective and subjective morality. If you were born in Nazi Germany in 1935 under the Third Reich in a extremely anti-Semitic home, do you honestly believe that you would know better? I am not afraid to agree that if these were the circumstances that were given to me, I would've hated the Jewish people, and anyone reasonable would say so too. Morality is subjective, and what that means is that my morals are subject to the environment around me. "Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual." - Frederic Nietzsche