Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

Thank you Con for your argument. I will address my opponent while also reaffirming my contentions. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Con asserts that I suggested infinite regress but I did not, I submit temporal regress after the Big Bang. Con ask, "why God does not experience regress?" God is infinite and outside physical time and nature. If God could diminish then He would not be infinite. Since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed[1] then a infinite source must exist. I also contend that only physical things have temporal regress and are finite.[2] An infinite temporal regress is impossible because an actual infinite is impossible with physical things. Therefore, whatever begins to exist has a cause and go back far enough an infinite source must exist and the only explanation available is God. The Ontological Argument. Con confuses premises two with premise four and also preconditioning. In premise two we are given the statement that a maximally great being is only great if He has maxim excellence(omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection). Then it follows that a maximally great being would have those excellence's in all worlds. Then the fourth premise follows with that being existing in all possible worlds. So it would look like this in simple terms: 2) God would have these qualities if He is great 3) These are the qualities this great being would have 4) If this being is maximally great and have these qualities He would exist in all worlds. Each premise follows the other naturally. God cannot have a precondition because God has always existed therefore, never having a precondition before His existence. Con has not covered this argument enough so it stands. The Teleological Argument Con admits, "while the universe has the appearance of design", but then tosses it aside and says, "in reality this is an illusion." Con wants us to believe the visual appearance of design is just an illusion. When humans design things are they also illusions? If our universe, planet, sun, moon, and other planets are minorly adjusted then no life would exist on earth. Our planets and solar system rotate in a pattern and is mathematically accurate to allow us to understand it. Con wants us to think it is all an illusion. I do not think it is. I will offer the premise that morals come from intelligence and intelligence needs a mind. Therefore, our universe and life appear to come from a mind. I will address this in the moral section. Cons only contention here is that we have been around far less than the universe and our earth so we adapted to them. I think it is in all species nature to adapt so I would have to agree. That natural thing does not fight off my contention that the universe appears designed by a mind. Con offers no reason why evolution is not random and just happened. Why we have life opposed to no life. I cannot offer any reason for the Big-Bang. He simply offers adaptation which I agree with. Con has not shown why we actually adapt and what caused us to exist. If no life caused us to exist then we should be as intelligent as animals but we are not, we are much more intelligent. This leads us into morality and needing a mind. Need for a mind I have given the argument that there exists an uncaused, immaterial, timeless, powerful cause of the universe. I have offered the order and design in which my opponent conceded is apparent. The only thing that fits that description is an unembodied mind. So it is up to Con to show that it is incoherent. If humans are composed of mind and body, then the mind is distinct from the body. There may be minds that are never conjoined to bodies. I have given multiple premises for why the universe was created and probably is personal. I’ve now given an argument for the existence of a unembodied mind.[3] God is necessary for morality Con offers no rebuttal but fallacies, no atheistic moral framework, no reason why we as humans have similar moral grounding, and no reason why we can think any further than basic animals. Moral Values & Duties God is necessarily good and moral values can be said to exist in Him. God’s nature is the greatest of goodness; what good or bad is, is determined by His nature. God’s nature is in the form of commands which constitute our moral duties directed toward us. This is why we have similar moral directions.[4] In the absence of God it’s not evident that cruelty would be wrong or right. God's commands does not imply why there should be good reasons to love, have kindness, and patience because they ingrained in our genes. Atheism cannot offer any other explanation, why do we have these natural moral values if not for a higher mind to place them on us? Fallacy #1: The Euthyphro Dilemma. Many contemporary philosophers of religion suppose there are true propositions which exist as platonic dependently on God. Christian theism rejects a view as inconsistent with God's omnipotence, which requires that all that there is, is God and what he has made. From a theistic perspective the Euthyphro dilemma is false.[5] As Rogers puts it, "Anselm, like Augustine before him and Aquinas later, rejects both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value." Fallacy #2: Appeal to consequences. "Even if we accept Pros obviously flawed reasoning, he still does not consider the possibility that morality just might not exist. He has not shown that it necessarily exists, and thus it is possible to reasonably reject God and morality altogether." Con never offers another option but animal instincts. Summation I have made a Personal Creator of the universe plausible. Ockham’s Razor states when two theories are introduced the simplest answer is necessity. My opponent has not offered any answer for atheism. Atheism is not reasonable if we do not have explain for our universe, moral values and duties, and logical reason why we should deny there is appearance of design. Both of my opponents fallacies fail. Resolution Affirmed! SOURCES: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...