No believer in any religion that includes an afterlife can provide me with a sound argument

Thanks, Pro, for your rebuttals.A Priori Arguments:Mind Over MatterMy opponent argues that all of the information in the world (or 'truths' or 'communication' as he would prefer) would disappear if minds did not exist. As I showed, the matter in this universe is structured in specific ways. Matter obeys the physical laws, organisms rely on genetic codes for reproduction, and so on and so forth. Information is the underlying principle, and matter is the medium through which it is expressed. If minds didn't exist, the physical laws of the universe would still exist. What are the laws, other than the necessary ordering of information?Of course, my opponent is a materialist, and does not want to accept the logical conclusion of this argument. But chaos does not produce order. A weak rebuttal was produced, and this argument still stands. If my opponent wants to reject this, he must show how chaos can produce order or that the universe isn't structured in very specific ways.The Prime MoverMy opponent argued that the prime mover is quantum fluctuations that have changed form since the start of the universe. This statement is simply false.The prime mover is what caused everything to exist. It itself must be beyond space, time, and limitations. These are necessary, prima facie conclusions. So, even if my opponent wants to argue that quantum fluctuations did cause our universe to exist, that still doesn't answer what he understands to be the ultimate first cause of reality, if it isn't God.My opponent argued that he can take apart a cat and create different things out of it. Okay, but then you don't have a cat anymore. I argued that a cat can't be both a dog and a cat at the same time. I outlined an example of the structures of reality, starting with a cat, and going down to cell structures, atoms, and quarks. Apparently, my opponent did not follow this argument. Everything that exists depends on a structure that is less complex than itself, continuing down until the ultimate existence- that which is without limitations.My opponent asked for me to provide a source from my argument from quantum mechanics. I was proving an a priori explanation to a well known principle in physics through logical reasoning- a source is only relevant in a posteriori arguments.My opponent then makes the claim that the prime mover of all reality could be a ball. This is simply false: a ball must be made out of some type of material property, one possibility being plastic. That plastic is structured from specific elements, made from specific atoms, with quarks, continuing down until we reach the actual prime mover. A prime mover cannot have boundaries, be a part of the material world, or even be in perpetual motion. These are prima facie qualities of the prime mover, and this rebuttal is woefully insufficient.This conclusion that the prime mover is the limitless and continual cause of all reality still stands. Since my opponent seems not to understand this argument, and I am unable to understand his method of thinking, I would like to ask him to propose his understanding of what the prime mover is. Hopefully this may clear up some confusion.A Posteriori ArgumentsThe Historicity of JesusFirst of all, I would like to deeply apologize that my source didn't work. Some of the text must have been deleted when I copy and pasted it. Here is the link: (1)My opponent argued that even if Jesus was resurrected, it does not prove that God or the afterlife is a reality. To counter that, I would argue that Jesus made very specific claims while he was living. He argued that He would be resurrected, that there was an afterlife, and that God would bring him back to life. So, if Jesus really was resurrected, it would be reasonable to conclude he was trustworthy about his claims about God and the afterlife. However, I recognize that my opponent doesn't readily concede that Jesus was resurrected. So, on to his arguments:My opponent stated that he would rather believe that the majority of historians lack ability to do their job, then believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead. However, reality is determined by truth, not what we wish to be the case. My opponent argued that Jesus not rising from the dead is the lesser mystery, but I don't understand that train of thought. I exhausted all of the different possibilities of the interpretation of the resurrection. Are you arguing that the lesser mystery is that many people lied about a savior, then went on to preach to people so that they would be punished by cruel and unusual torture, rather than an ultimate God performing a minor miracle of raising one person from the dead?Now, as my opponent did argue that he disagrees with the general consensus of historians (and I always approve of healthy skepticism), I would like to ask which of the generally accepted facts do you disagree with. (The reason I started with the general consensus of historians was because arguing for each proposition individually would have exhausted precious character space, this way we can have some initial starting point, and see where we disagree.) If I were able to know your specific objections, it would help me with knowing which historical writings and artifacts to reference to meet your objections.The Historicity of GenesisMy opponent argued that disproving evolution does not prove creation. Okay, but I never made that argument. I would ask that my opponent not attack arguments that I haven't made. What I did argue was that the specific argument of genetic decay sufficiently disproves evolution, and to quote myself “perfect creation with decay fits the model.” Arguing that my paradigm is consistent with the empirical data is not a fallacy.My opponent also argued that I made the fallacy ad populum. No, I argued that it was worth nothing that not all the critics of evolution were religious. That is not a fallacy. Again, please don't refute arguments I didn't make. My posts are very limited with space, and I don't appreciate having to waste most of them on countering fake arguments.My opponent then attacked the character of those scientists who were persuaded by the evidence of creation, and left behind their evolutionary beliefs. Why attack people you have never met, that you have no idea of what their specific reasons were for changing their minds, and that did something that you seem to be so wholeheartedly against- recognize and opposing opinion, giving it a fair evaluation, and going where the evidence leads?My opponent then argued that he needed proof for the argument that there was a threshold for the amount of mutations an organism can have before it reaches extinction. I did provide him with more than sufficient evidence, but he stated he did not find it reasonable to spend so much time watching a lecture for this debate. I did not personally find it unreasonable to expect my opponent to watch it, but I apologize for assuming my expectations would match is.He then asked for a reference to papers published in scientific journals that corroborate this argument. Here is a link to a fountain of scientific papers on the subject: (2)New Argument: MiraclesBecause I have extra space this round, I will introduce a new argument: Miracles do happen!Craig S. Keener (3) is received his Ph.D in New Testament Studies from Duke University. He has published a book (4) on miracles. Here is a brief, few minute interview (5) and a longer lecture for viewers of this debate who are interested (6).The author researched the credibility of miracles from various cultures all around the world. There are over one thousand accounts in his book (he was very extensive and it took him many years to accomplish). In the book, he provides examples of everything from simple medical healings to people being raised from the dead, all by people praying in the name of Jesus. Also, 73 percent of American physicians believe in miracles, and 55 percent claim to have witnessed treatment results they consider miraculous (7). I would argue that since so many people around the world now have documented evidence of their testimonies, and that well trained and educated physicians can corroborate the claims, it would be irrational to dismiss miracles as impossible or false. And, if people are praying to Jesus and are being healed in ways that define medical explanation, even to the point where they are being raised from the dead, one should find it rational to believe that there does indeed exist a God who does interact with the world, and cares enough to answer the prayers of the faithful. Unresolved Arguments:My opponent stated in the comments section that I should be prepared for the evidential problem of evil argument. I don't mind addressing it, mostly because I recognize how strong many people believe this argument to be. However, my opponent has not formally introduced the argument. I would prefer he posit his understanding of it, and how he believes it refutes the existence of God, so that I can adequately meet his objections. So, since I have run out of space again, I will deal with the evidential problem of evil, and will hopefully also be able to bring to the table the (a priori) moral argument for God. I will argue that objective moral values exist, and that God is the only possible cause as to how that can be. My opponent may begin his objection next round in preparation for me (he can either argue that objective moral values don't exist, or argue that they can exist without God).Good luck to Pro next round. I look forward to your objections.(1) http://www3.telus.net...(2) http://www.geneticentropy.org...(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://www.amazon.com...(5) (6) (7) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...