Belief in God is reasonable

Thanks, Con.Interestingly, con is saying that I am attempting to soften my burden of proof by trying to prove that "Belief in a God is reasonable" rather than "Proof a God exists."The title of this debate is: "Belief in God is reasonable."In my first opening paragraph, my second sentence was "This is a debate claiming that belief in God is reasonable." What's more, is that I was reading your debate topic on "Evolution is Falsified" with Garrett and you said in your concluding round of the debate: "The title of the debate was "Evolution is Falsified". The title is the first principle governs the format of the debate, sets the BoP etc."So even by your own set of rules, this debate is to prove that belief in God is reasonable and there's really no logical reason to think otherwise. The reason I give "reasonable evidences" is to support my assertion that belief in God is reasonable, not to make a claim that there's "Proof a God exists." "My original adaption of Russell’s teapot scenario still applies here. I would add, even if you were able to conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt evolution is false. This does not begin to make the belief in a God reasonable."Russell's teapot analogy is a metaphor illustrating the impossibility of proving a negative. This analogy is meant to be analogous to God or an intelligent designer. It is not analogous because there is reasonable evidence to believe that a an intelligent designer exist because the universe exhibits qualities of design that are better explained by a designer rather than spontaneity (take natural laws for example). Therefore Russell's teapot analogy doesn't apply because there is no evidence of a teapot floating millions of miles above earth but there is reasonable evidence of design in our universe rather than something that doesn't exhibit any qualities of existence.As I've stated in previous rounds the origin of the universe boils down into two separate categories: an intelligent designer or natural causes. As one explanation becomes more unlikely, the other becomes more likely. Try to think of any other explanation other than intelligent design or natural causes for the origin of our universe. Even if an alien of some kind designed our universe it would still be a design of intelligence or of a supreme being given the intricacy, interdependency, and fragileness of our existence given the odds against existing and sustaining in the first place.The second law of thermodynamics by itself disproves evolution given the impossibility of the sun or any other means to circumvent the second law (referencing my plant example). This hasn't been part of the debate but since you brought up that I haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, in addition, abiogenesis has never been shown to occur in nature or through a controlled environment (even though amino acids "the building blocks of life" were created in a lab under very specific conditions, they were not able to create any form of life even given this controlled setting. How would nature have spontaneously created a perfect environment for life to arise from non-life and then to thrive?) mutations are overwhelmingly more harmful than good, no bone evidence has been found of missing links despite dinosaurs pre-existing essentially almost every link that's every lived, and violation of the nested hierarchy given randomly distributed germ-cell formation arising simultaneously as evidenced in the 'Evolution is Falsified" debate. In order to argue that the first law of thermodynamics does not require divine intervention, you would have to argue that matter has existed eternally. Since we exist in the confines of time (whereas God does not), there would be an infinite regress of time before waiting until this present moment of time. It is impossible that matter is eternal. If the universe is not infinite, matter and energy were created. Since they were created, this defies laws saying that they cannot be created. Therefore, belief that God has created matter by means that supersede these laws is reasonable.One note about the phrase: "God of the Gaps" that Krauss likes to use. This really isn't true. Sure, people have attributed phenomena that is explained by scientific discoveries made throughout history, but this doesn't lessen the design that was already in place. Science is really just discovering the design that already exists. Scientists aren't creating or inventing anything, merely discovering and documenting how phenomena that is already in place works.Zero energy universe"It is from a process akin to this that positive matter and energy can appear form what seems to be nothing, since the net energy content is zero."I can certainly see how this is a complex issue, but at its core this does absolutely nothing to prove that virtual particles show that energy or matter creation is possible. The virtual particles always have the same net effect and nothing is created in the process. Even when "popping out of existence" there is a negative gravitational potential that acts as an exchange for this effect and is only extremely temporary.2nd law of thermodynamicsPro seems to be quite hung-up on the disorder definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Disorder is an exceptionally ill-defined quantity, whereas entropy is defined strictly in terms which relate to the quantity of ‘useful energy’ in a system.This seems to be an attempt by con to avoid the issue of the second law of thermodynamics providing an upward energy gradient for life to follow using the power of the sun. In the last round I admitted that I used the second law's definition in the general sense (which isn't wrong) and provided a very specific example as to why life couldn't have followed an upward, complex organization. By focusing on the definition of entropy rather than the implications of the second law which I've covered last round, con seems to be making a straw-man argument.In addition, take this quote taken from Stephen Hawking, who is of the most outspoken and famous of atheist scientists as he speaks of the second law of thermodynamics: "It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder." [2]Argument of natural law and infinitesimally small likelihood of life existing.con simply dismisses my arguments of "natural laws" saying that they aren't indicative of evidence for God. Intelligent design is specifically that: intelligent design. This in stark contrast to chaotic and spontaneous causes of the universe presumed by natural means. Now, if universal and unchanging laws of order exist, which camp do these laws lean more in favor of: an intelligent designer or chaotic spontaneous causes? Since it would be illogical to assume that spontaneity and chaos govern universal and unchanging laws of order, it would be reasonable to believe they were created by an intelligent designer to naturally govern order in the universe. Therefore, belief in God is reasonable.Likelihood of life existingThis is supporting evidence of a God given the sheer unlikelihood of life to exist. The evidence against the probability of life existing is all around us: we haven't found any life forms yet or any planets capable of inhabiting a sustainable life force such as ours. LoveCon is essentially arguing that love exists as a means of social cooperation. Cooperation can be coerced through fear, intimidation, reward, or any kind of incentive really. This doesn't explain why love intrinsically enhances well-being and is inherently "good."Good and evilRight and wrong are different values than good and evil. Good and evil relate to moral characteristics whereas "right and wrong" could apply in a different set of circumstances unrelated to morals. A collective group can be cooperative and still engage in evil activity. Take Nazi Germany for example. An entire country collectively unwilling to stand up for what was right and stop annihilation of the Jews and sub-groups[1]. To deny the existence of good and evil is to assume that objective morality doesn't exist which would require a big leap of faith and ignorance given that human beings have a conscience that acts as a moral compass to remind us what we already intuitively know is right and what is wrong. "It isn’t even clear why a God would be required for our sense of beauty, only Pro’s bare assertion for such." Because if God existed, then absolutes would exist. Absolute truth. Absolute beauty. Absolute perfection. If absolutes exist, then the nature of anything is not absolute unless it posses all of the qualities of that nature. Take one diamond that is less beautiful than another. The less beautiful diamond is more flawed than the more beautiful one and possesses less of the true nature of a diamond because it has flaws. The existence of an absolute, rather than subjective a sense, of objective and universal beauty means that the ultimate beauty is flawless. This aesthetic perfection is only objectively real if a God exists. conclusion:My evidences are favored by an intelligent designer rather than by means of spontaneity and chaos. The universe exhibits traits of intelligent design. Science is merely the discovery and documentation of how the designs in our universe already work. Given my evidence in favor of an intelligent designer, I have shown that belief in God is reasonable. Thank you con for this debate.http://www.jaapl.org... [1]http://www.hawking.org.uk... [2]