It is not reasonable to believe in God

To close with my final argument My opponent said, "To say that something "begins to exist", means that there was a time at which it didn't exist, but there is no such time before the Big Bang, and so didn't begin to exist. Hence, the universe is finite, but there was no time before the universe, and so it didn't require a cause because it didn't arise out of a previous time. Think of it this way: God is supposed to have created the universe, and with it time itself. But which category does God fall into? God couldn't have always existed, because God created time itself. If God caused Himself to exist, then why is it impossible for the universe to do so? If God was created by another being, then that being must have been created by another, and so on to absurdity" Nobody created God. Everything that BEGINS to exist does require a cause, but the Bible says that God is Spirit and eternal, or without beginning. That being the case, He did not need a maker, or a cause. He is the Uncaused cause, or Creator of all things. My opponent said, "This has been shown to be a good explanation as to things, such as the eye, can form, the evolution of which has been traced extensively" If Darwin himself doubted the evolution of the eye, why is it that no one else seems to? Darwin created this and yet he didn't believe it? Do you see a problem with this? Mutations by chemical reactions (how mutation would have to start in the first place) are impossible to form without proteins forming. Without this happening, life could never appear because proteins are such a fundamental component that make life possible. The simplest protein of life ribonuclease is formed by 124 strands of amino acids. This protein performs a vital task in the chemistry of life. If the amino acids were to link up in the wrong order or if even one of the amino acids were the wrong type then the resulting protein would be unable to perform ribonuclease's job. Thus if the first amino acid were "Glu" instead of "Lys" the protein would no longer be able to do the job required of it. The simplest strand of protein contains around 17 amino acids. There are usually about 20 amino acids, but we'll be generous right now. So in order to form this strand of protein, for the chances of the first amino acid forming on the strand to be "Lys" it would be 1 in 17. These odds do not sound bad at all. However, the chance of forming a protein with "Lys" as its first amino acid and "Glu" as its second amino acid is 1 in 17 TIMES 1 in 17 which calculates to be 1 in 289. Going further the probability of forming a protein whose first three amino acids are "Lys" "Glu" and "Thr" in that order are 1 in 17 times 1 in 17 times 1 in 17 or 1 in 4,913. If you are to complete this entire calculation you would find that the odds of making this protein by chance is approximately 1 in 10 to the 152 power. In order to illustrate how low these odds are the probability of forming ribonuclease by chance is roughly equivalent to the probability of a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row. And ribonuclease is just a "simple" protein. There are some proteins that are required for our body to work properly that contain more than 10,000 amino acids. My opponent closed in saying, "Based on my last debate, I would like to end by rebutting the Argument from Faith, the idea that faith is a good reason for belief" I would like to conclude that being an atheist requires as much faith if not more, that there is no God than it does faith that there is one. How is having faith in God any more absurd than having faith that there is not one. I believe that it requires more faith to believe that the universe created itself from a big explosion, that we are just a pile of random atoms, or that we evolved from monkeys, or that our brains or our eye are no different than a computer or a camera, than it does to believe that an intelligent creator has made us with a purpose. I would rather be considered to be made in my God's image than to be considered the product of a monkey. I will close with this, ( I know this was a short rebuttal but…) If you are an atheist, and you are right, what do you win? But if I am right, think what you have to lose. Thank you for this debate Derridia, it was very interesting and at times, challenging. I have enjoyed it.