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

“The evidence that Muhammad possessed a truly supernatural gift of prophecy is lacking.” My opponent has failed to actually read the website I provided which state the prophecies of the Quran. The website that I provided, talks specifically of Prophecies within the Quran regarding, for example, air traffic, or pollution(1). Since Pro has failed to address this and instead addressed an argument I did not make, therefore the objection against prophecies is valid. “Con has not offered any proof to show that there was, indeed, a singularity at the beginning of the universe” Con does not need to show proof, since Con is not claiming this to be true. However, the very possibility of a singularity, makes it unreasonable to accept a creator explanation unless Pro can show a reason why God would be more likely than all other possibilities. Pro has refused to answer my question regarding how he knows this to be impossible, and since he has not produced any arguments that show that God creating this universe must necessarily be more likely than all other possibilities, it is therefore unreasonable for Atheists. “I am stating that a Creator who created the universe is a much more reasonable explanation than a natural accident creating the universe” The reasoning behind this statement can be quoted by a previous argument that Pro has made: If there was a singularity at the very beginning of time which resulted in the big bang, it would have no reason to explode Again, the reasoning behind Pros argument is that since he cannot find a reason why, therefore his belief of a God is more likely. This is the very definition of an argument from ignorance.(2) “First, we know the universe had a beginning so it is not eternal.” Again, Pro has ignored the fact that we do not know what came before the beginning of the universe, that would make the universe in some form or another, eternal. Without knowledge of this, we cannot claim that the beginning of this universe necessarily precludes it from being eternal. “Due to the law of causality, we know that nothing cannot produce something.” The possibility of an eternal universe, and the inability of Pro to show that all other possibilities other than God is unreasonable without relying on a logical fallacy, dismisses this argument. “Where once the universe did not exist, a universe could not come into existence unless an outside Intelligence causes it to.” Pro has, yet again, failed to address my previous argument. How does Pro know that the universe must have been created by an intelligence? All of pro's previous arguments failed with the fact that contradictory Gods and deities exist, and Pro cannot disprove them all, nor has his attempts at proving the Christian God, worked. Prophecies have failed, since the Quran has prophecies as well. The argument that the bible was written by many authors, has failed, since the book was compiled well after the first Jewish kingdom at the latest, and therefore subject to interpolation, exclusion of Apocryphal or contradictory texts much like the New testament. Also, since the Old testament is both accepted by Jews and Christians, this presents a contradiction of beliefs, as Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah. “a) there is more to life than what we see and feel around us” This, if true, does not necessarily point to a God. Pro has not made the connection, it is a non-sequitor to connect “There is something more to life” to “Therefore a God must exist”. “b) there are good reasons for accepting belief in a supernatural Being” What are those good reasons? So far, Pro has stated several, which have all failed due to the fact that they apply to multiple religions and cannot be attributed to a single one, such as Prophecy, or rely on a logical fallacy such as a non-sequitor. “The world has been fine-tuned for our survival, and the universe around us (while much of it is hostile to human life)” This entire universe has been created by God, and therefore, the fact that only this solar system, consisting of less than .000000001% of the entire universe, is the only place that is not hostile to human life, is both counter-intuitive and a non-sequitor. Pro has failed to address this problem. Pro has also failed to address that the Fine tuning of this world is not actually fine-tuned at all, since we have already observed another planet in the Goldilocks zone. “The Gospels were, indeed, written by eyewitnesses” Again, all 4 gospels were of unknown authorship. It is only by church tradition that the authorship has been attributed to these 4.(3) The fact that both Matthew and Luke borrow so heavily from Mark, despite Pros claims that they were an eyewitness, shows that they would not have been an eyewitness, as there is no reason why an eyewitness to Jesus' life would have to borrow so heavily from another eyewitness. Since Mark was not an eyewitness himself, this makes his gospel, hearsay. The Gospel of John is, by many modern scholars, irreconcilable with the synoptic gospels. “Just because those particular accounts were not historical doesn't mean they weren't historically relevant.” I agree, however, Pros argument used those as an example of how the written Torah had been compiled. Since none of the examples that Pro provided, were regarding the Torah, this essentially makes Pros argument of bringing up examples from the Old Testament to show that the writings were instantly added as canon, false, as they were not books that were added to canon. “However, being the legal son of Joseph, Jesus had a claim to David's throne.” We are talking about the Bloodline of King David. This is exactly why many Christians tried to argue that Mary was also the descendant of King David. This is because, anything else would contradict the prophecies of 2 Sam 7:11 and 1 Chron 17:11 that King Davids seed would be the one to rule. A legally adopted son is not the seed, the bloodline of David. Therefore this argument fails. This is only compounded by the fact that both Luke and Matthew claim two different genealogies of Joseph, which is where we get our understanding that Joseph is the direct descendant of King David. “They are not considered inspired because they have some teachings that contradict Scripture.” The fact that those early church fathers who supported different, heretical texts were excommunicated and exiled from the church, tells us of the unreliability of the New testament and its compilation. The fact that a group of men, chose, and subsequently voted on what would be considered the word of God and what would not, gives us reason to doubt the very voracity and accuracy of the new testament. So far, Pros arguments have failed. Pro has conceded his teleological arguments, granting my objections to be valid. Pro has been unable to address how he knows that the universe cannot be eternal, and instead relying on an argument of ignorance. The problem that encompasses Pros argument, can be summed up by a single quotation from pro: If you have a better explanation, please share. This is the problem. Con does not need to show that a better explanation exists. What is required, is for Pro to show why his explanation is necessarily better. Pro has the burden of Proof, not Con. This is true with the principle of causality, and this was also true with Pros argument of Morality, where Pro stated that even if Morality was naturally explained, this would still not prove that it came from God. Since Pro has the burden of proof to show why it is God, and not ask why it shouldn't be God or whether I have a better explanation other than God, I believe Pro has failed in his requirements regarding these arguments to show that Atheists are not reasonably and logically justified in disbelieving a God. I believe these cover all of the three initial arguments presented by Pro. Vote Con. Source: 1. http://www.alislam.org...... 2. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...... 3. http://www.twopaths.com...