It is not reasonable to believe in God

Thank you for your prompt reply and I am sorry I didn't get to this yesterday, my internet was going crazy. Ok, my opponent gave two more options of how the universe could have gotten here. I will point out the flaws of each. "4) The universe existed timelessly before the Big Bang." This option would fall under the second category. If it existed timelessly, it has always existed. And I have already disproved this theory in the previous argument. "5) The universe is finite, but didn't have a beginning." This option is once again impossible. The earth is falling apart. So that means it has to end. Anything that ends and that is finite, has to have a beginning. Ok, now onto the second reason why I believe there is proof God exists. It is the complexity of Life. Design is not hard to recognize. This amazing complexity that permeates all of life is another reason why more and more scientists are concluding an intelligent designer must exist. Let's consider some examples of complex life forms. First, let's consider the human body. It has an amazingly complex: - Nervous system - Cardiovascular system - Reproductive system - Skeletal system - Digestive System - Ability to heal itself and to fight off diseases. I find it difficult to believe that the human body could have come into existence by some mindless process, apart from an incredibly intelligent designer, even given millions of years. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to wind, rain, the forces of nature, chance and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mt. Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention. (It took 400 intelligent workers fourteen years (1927-1941) to carve those four faces. And George and Abe just stare at you. They don't talk. They don't smile. They don't do anything. How much more intelligence would it take to create a living breathing human being? Good question.) It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and it would take even greater intelligence to create a real human being. No one alive today would believe that the faces of Mt. Rushmore came about by millions of years of erosion, wind, rain and undirected random acts. And yet atheists believe that real-life human beings with 206 bones, 640 muscles, and a heart that beats over 10,000 times a day are the product of a mindless, random series of accidents. Not only is the body as a whole incredibly complex, the individual parts making up the body are highly complex. The late agnostic astronomer Carl Sagan conceded that the brain alone is a "…machine more wonderful than any devised by humans" and that it holds enough information to "fill some twenty million volumes." I do not have enough faith to believe that this "machine more wonderful than any devised by humans" came into being from nothing, by nothing, and then evolved via some mindless, random series of accidents, as evolutionists believe Consider the human eye. The eye is a ball with a lens on one side and a light sensitive retina made up of rods and cones inside the other. The lens itself has a sturdy protective covering called a cornea and sits over an iris designed to protect the eye from excessive light. The eye contains a fantastic watery substance that is replaced every four hours. Tear glands continuously flush the outside clean. An eyelid sweeps secretions over the cornea to keep it moist. Eyelashes protect it from dust. And extraordinarily fine tuned muscles are attached to the eye that move the eye and shape the lens for the function of focus. The eye is far more complex and advanced than the world's greatest auto-focus camera that took researchers and developers numerous years and millions of dollars to design and create. Did this amazing piece of complex machinery (the eye) come together by some mindless process and random series of accidents? It's not possible, yet atheists muster up the faith to say "yes" to this question. Even the most well known Darwinist of all time had difficulties believing that the eye came into being by blind forces. Who am I talking about? Charles Darwin. Darwin himself found it hard to accept the notion that the eye could be the product of evolution. He conceded that the intricacies of the human eye gave him: "Cold shudders." In his famous book, On The Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable [matchless] contrivances [plans] for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Because of this and other reasons, there is a growing list of people that are starting to be skeptical to the theory of Darwinism and evolution. On February 21, 2006 the headlines read: "500 Doctoral Scientists Skeptical of Darwin." This is the statement to which these scientists are attaching their names: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." You can see this growing list at: www.DissentFromDarwin.org This growing list of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism (which has now grown to more than 700 scientists) includes scientists from such prestigious institutions as: U.C. Berkeley UCLA Cambridge University Yale Princeton Stanford MIT and The Smithsonian These scientists, who believe in an intelligent designer of the universe, are joining ranks with some of the most brilliant scientists to have ever lived, men like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Blaise Pascal, all who believed in God's existence