Religion must logically be rejected

Rebuttal:I found it quite ironic my opponent agreed that the universe has a cause! As defined by Oxford Dictionaries a cause is a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. He has just agreed that something created us!I am assuming my opponent believes that this cause is scientific, however this implies that there were previous determining conditions. However there was nothing prior to the universe as my opponent believes. Therefore the cause of the universe must be uncaused. The only way for the cause to have created time and matter, it must have been able to transcend time and matter. This implies that the cause must be powerful, therefore my opponent has already agreed with god's existence. Again in order to negate this resolution, I do not have to prove that religion should be accepted. The resolution clearly states: "Religion must logically be rejected". Therefore by proving that religion mustn't be logically rejected would be valid. NOT that religion must be accepted. My likelihood of life as I stated in my own contention was not accurate, and I am aware. I did clearly state that in my contention. However, the point I was trying to get across is that the chances of life are so minuscule. Not only is it extremely unlikely that we are, but the fact that the universe is still stable and we are so finely tuned. I don't understand how the source my opponent provided at all proves that life is common. If life is so common, why do we not see life spontaneously being created anywhere in our galaxy that we can explore? Also, why hasn't the Earth or a planet in the universe been completely destroyed yet? The fact of the matter is, the universe balances on the tip of a needle. One example of a possible apocalyptic event out of the many is a possible asteroid hit. “The threat of the Earth being hit by an asteroid is increasingly being accepted as the single greatest natural disaster hazard faced by humanity.” says Nick Bailey. Now I am not promoting that an apocalyptic event will happen, but if due to the fact that the universe has been here so long and has had no extreme damage that we can tell on Earth just leaves you with the thought, why?Again I was never proving that there is an afterlife, or Jesus died for our sins. This is a totally different argument and is irrelevant. I am arguing arguing that a "faith-based" belief in a god mustn't be logically rejected. My opponent himself provides no arguments why it must be logically rejected. He merely states that the origin is life is likely.Conclusion:My opponent completely agrees with the Kalam Cosmological argument, proving that there is a god. Not only did he not respond to the whole premise of a "faith=based" religion and the fact that proof does not lie in logic, he also completely dropped my second contention! His only unclear response was that life is not unlikely which does not affirm the resolution AT ALL. Again, my whole entire case still stands. My opponent dropped most of it, and agreed with some of it! All in all, my opponent provides almost no argument, sets up a debate where it's almost impossible to win because of the definition of "faith-based", and completely drops most of my arguments. Therefore I stand in negation of the resolution that states "Religion must logically be rejected." Thanks for reading this and I urge a con ballot.http://oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.dailygalaxy.com...