Theistic beliefs can be rational.

I will reserve this round for rebuttals and more arguments if they crop up in my head. I would like to being with the rebuttals starting with my opponent's C1, which claims suggestive evidence based on two arguments that claim to rationally lead to the conclusion of the existence of God and/or other theistic deities. This in turn leads to my opponent declaring that the God hypothesis is rational. This is the same as saying that this particular theistic belief is rational and that theistic beliefs can be rational. I will attempt to disprove both theories (and any other theory my opponent seeks to bring up). I will begin this with a rebuttal of C1's first argument, the cosmological argument, by questioning the necessity of the conclusion of some theistic god(s) existence(s), which I will consequently hold to be unnecessary and therefore illogical. 1) Counter cosmological argument: The cosmological argument basically says that since we exist contingently dependent on other contingent beings whose existence is similarly dependent, infinitely regressing this series of contingencies would ultimately end up at a source. In my opponent's argument, this source is the beginning/creation of the universe. My opponent then makes the giant leap toward the conclusion that God is the source. My argument will be simple. If God exists, how does God exist. Who created God? Who created God's creator? Who created God's creator's creator? (ad infinitum) One explanation would be to say 'God just is'. However, saying that 'God just is' would be creating a double standard. If 'God just is', then why not 'the universe just is'? Why can the universe not have been 'just is' since time immemorial? This discrepancy in turn negates the use of God as an explanation for the universe's origin; God becomes an unnecessary explanatory entity. 2) Counter Fine-tuning argument: My opponent's argument bubbles down to this: P1) if the universe didn't follow the laws that it does, it wouldn't have been able to sustain life. P2) The universe does follow the laws that it does (i.e. laws of physics) P3) There is no feasible materialistic explanation as to why the universe follows the laws it does. C) God, being a possible explanation of universal laws, can be conclusively declared the author of these laws. There are a few things I'd like to say about this line of logic. First, I believe the leap from Premise 3 to the conclusion to be unsubstantiated. Even if it were true, that feasible material explanations do not exist just as easily points to the possibility that there is no explanation for the universe. The universe just is; the universe has existed infinitely before in a pre-big bang state and will exist infinitely after in a post-big bang state. Second, i believe P3 is an unfair dismissal of all other explanations in arbitrary favor of theism. The introduction of God as the only feasible solution to the universe would be like me explaining the existence of flying pegacorns (unisus?) as the only feasible explanation for any random assortments of events/entities. God as a solution is unnecessary and irrelevant. I would like to dedicate the remainder of the round to writing out both a counter to my opponent's C2 and anything else that may crop up in my head. On the subject of spiritual experiences, this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing (sounds like a whole lot of crock to me, to be perfectly honest). Millions? Where does this statistic even come from? Why should we lend these people any credibility? How do we even know these 'miracles' are really miracles? Even if, for the sake of this argument, these people do believe they have witnessed miracles. This belief is subjective. The experience may be subjectively miraculous (or it may be a lie, who knows?), but an event's being miraculous doesn't make it necessarily a miracle. I also believe that there is a deluded connection being drawn from the subjective miracle to God. The argument is thus: a)I believe in God. b)Something that usually doesn't happen to me happens (or something coincidental) C) God is the one who made that happen and God exists. There is no rational or logical connection between b and C. Thus contention 2 fails. By maintaining the position that theistic deities, God among them, doesn't exist, I am able to maintain the validity of my first contention. My second contention has yet to be mentioned but I suspect my opponent will address it in his rebuttal round. (note of curiosity: I know that, based on the resolution, all you have to do is prove the rational existence of one theistic belief to fulfill the statement that theistic beliefs can be rational, but why monotheism? Why should we credit creation to one being? Why not many beings? In fact, why must these beings even be supernatural? I think back to a character from star trek named Q who, due to the highly advanced technology he and all other residents of the Q continuum enjoy, is, for all intents and purposes, a god). This ends my round. I will now pass the baton on to my opponent. Have at me!