Christianity v Atheism

My opponent has raised this debate to the heavens with his theoretical arguments. I fully intend to bring this debate crashing down the reality to which we all live and die in. My opponent is also attempting to shift his claims to monotheism. I won't allow it because the resolution is "Christianity versus Atheism." My opponent also stated in Round 1, that he believed "Christianity is a more correct world-view." Therefore, my opponent must defend Christianity not monotheism."Energy and matter do not appear to have existed forever but to have started existing at the Big Bang. Also, energy and matter do not generate from nothing but have causes in the quantum world."How do you know that energy and matter have not always existed? How do you know how reality functioned before the Big Bang too? The Big Bang is merely a theory, not an authoritative fact."So we must get to a neccassary being who is the ultimate explanation, the creator of the Universe.This is what most monotheists believe to be God."How does the the Big Bang theory confirm the existence of one god? What prevents it from being multiple gods? Ho does the Big Bang confirm the existence of agod at all? The Big Bang is a theory, therefore it is speculation regardless."There exist a realm of real moral values and duties which we perceive in this world. "How do you know morals exist? The concept is metaphysical."If we accept this, however, we could run a counter-factual argument to deny our physical senses are really correct. "Our senses do not confirm the existence of morals. Our senses however, do confirm the existence of rapport since homosapiens sympathize with each other as they know more about each other[1]. Do you cry every time someone is killed in Russia, Nigeria, or some distant foreign land? No, that is because you do not have any rapport with those people. If you have morals about it is wrong for someone to be killed. You should feel the same way about a murder in New York City and a murder in Rio de Janeiro. You probably won't feel the same way because you lack the necessary identication with those people to build an equal rapport. You won't feel the same way when a stranger is killed compared to a friend or family member due to rapport.Our senses do not relate to morals but rapport. Morals are abstract concepts.[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...; "Further there is a contradiction in thinking our moral senses are subjective. Moral subjectivism says we ought to think bad actions are wrong. But this is contradictory since it confers a moral obligation upon the person who accepts that moral belief system. So it seems logical to think there are moral obligations in this world."Moral subjectivism does not assert the "rightness" or "wrongness" of actions. Only moral objectivism can assert the "rightness" and "wrongness" of an action. Moral subjectivism exists in practice and in reality. It is not a matter whether my opponent or I think moral subjectivism is pleasant. My opponent and I can state killing is wrong, theft is wrong, rape is wrong, and etc. but people will still do it regardless of what my opponent or I think. Moral objectivity may be our personal truths but it is not a fact in the real world with other people where different moral standards are observable. My opponent must also show how a moral obligation definitively exists."Analysing the historical parts of the Gospels and the historical letters of Paul we see there are four pieces of evidence put forth that Jesus was raised:1. Jesus was placed in an empty sealed tomb by Joseph of Arimathea after being crucified2. the disciples discovered his empty tomb on Easter Sunday3. people claimed to have seen Jesus after he had supposedly died4. all the people who knew Jesus saw him and knew him as the person who had been crucified"I am tossing out the Gospels out as potentially inaccurate resources due to none of them being written by Jesus, someone that met Jesus, or someone that interviewed people who knew Jesus. None of the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime. The first one written was fifty years after his death. We must assume, that the Gospels will have inaccuracies as a result of being a secondary source. Then on top of that many of the Gospels are Christian propaganda pieces as well which leaves biases rather than a historical narrative to be taken seriously. The letters of Paul were also Christian propaganda written by a devout Christian apostle not a scholar, not an annalist, and certainly not a historian. The Gospels nor the letters of Paul should be taken as historically accurate considering the intent of the authors."Now these facts raise the probability of Jesus being ressurected"No facts, I just debunked your resources for being propaganda pieces.Notice how most of my opponent's arguments are grounded in theory. This is simply because he instinctively knows, his view has no basis in reality.