Atheists are not logically and reasonably justified in their disbelief of a Christian God

Let's get right to it. Tkubok stated,". .. my opponent is wrong in claiming that there was nothing before the universe. Scientists believe that a singularity existed before the current state of the universe. "Tkubok, here, is begging the question. I read the article supplied by Con, and it doesn't prove there is a singularity (in fact, tkubok even said scientists believe there was a singularity that always existed) -- unless I missed it somewhere, in which case if he would point out the relevant paragraph I will re-read it. But I would ask him to prove that there was a singularity that has always existed and expanded into the universe, otherwise we can simply dismiss it as an ad hoc explanation to avoid having to believe in a God who created the universe. Furthermore, if there was a singularity that has always existed that expanded into our universe, why, then, did it cause a big bang and create the universe? If it was simply a singularity, a non-living, non-intelligent thing, then how could it have exploded and expanded into our universe? There must have been Someone behind it, otherwise a static singularity that has always existed would have no reason to undergo a big bang and create a universe. "We cannot conclude by this that the creator was necessarily God. .. "The difference here is that there is no universe-creating factory or magical unicorns. Those are the stuff of fairytales with no external evidence to support their existence. However, we have much evidence to suggest a God, not the least of which are all the people who believe in some kind of Deity. There are many religious texts claiming to be the words of God. It seems likely that one of the religions has it right. If there is a God who created our universe and wants to be a part of it, then certainly He would have spoken to us and given us religious texts so that we can know Him and know what He wants of His creation. The Bible is the most likely candidate for the true words of God, apart from other religions. The books of the Bible were written by over 40 authors from all different walks of life, yet they spoke in complete unity. Plus we have several Old Testament books that gave prophecies that were fulfilled by the events recorded in the New Testament. As well as other evidences. [1]"All social creatures have a basic understanding that killing within their group is wrong. .. a group cannot exist if its members freely kill each other. "This may be, and certainly I can see the logic in refusing to kill others because their friends or family may retaliate and cause you harm or death. However, this is not a motivating factor for most people. I don't know anyone who doesn't kill because they don't want to be killed in return. That may be a reason someone contemplating murder eventually doesn't go through with it, but people know that murder is simply wrong, and that is why they don't murder. They won't take a human life, not because they're afraid of retaliation. That would come second. Secondly, as C. S. Lewis postulates, if our morality were really about "herd instinct," then the stronger impulse would always win, which it does not. But people all the time put their lives in danger to help friends in need, or even complete strangers. [2] We wouldn't have a military or police force if the "herd mentality" were all there was to morality. The fact that we can make choices as to whether to do the "right" thing or the "convenient" thing proves that we do, in fact, have an ingrained sense of morality. Additionally, we cannot appeal to nature when it comes to human morality. Animals are bound by their instincts and can only go against them if they are trained to do so, and even then they still go with their nature if they can get away with it. Humans are higher than animals and have the ability to make moral decisions and act upon free will. ". .. the existence of a moral law does not tell us anything about where it came from. "If you have a better explanation, please share. If all humans have an innate sense of morality (and they don't have a mental illness that keeps them from noticing it), then how did it get there other than the Creator of the very people who try to abide by that law? It makes sense that there would be a Moral Law Giver, who has instilled in us an innate sense of the same morality this God shares (and has outlined when He delivered His words to us). ". .. the existence of a different set of moral standards disproves this argument. "I don't think it does. While different cultures may have differed on morality, nothing has ever amounted to a complete difference. If you compare the moral teachings of ancient cultures (e. g. the Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, etc. ), what will really strike you is how alike they are to ours. C. S. Lewis asks us to imagine a country with a totally different sense of morality, where men were praised for running away in battle or where a man felt proud of double-crossing those who have been kindest to him. Men have disagreed on what to be unselfish to (whether it be family, friends, strangers, etc. ), but they have always agreed you ought not to put yourself first. [3]Con used the example of slaves. While there were people who supported the owning of black people as property, there were also those who believed it was wrong and fought to free slaves. They were not acting on "herd mentality" but on a much deeper morality that said that all men are created equal and ought not be considered as property. The same morality that tells us owning slaves is wrong now, told them that owning slaves was wrong while it was accepted in our country. Also, I should point out that Moses was not condoning rape in the passage Con quoted. In fact, the women were kept as slaves, not to be raped. Slavery was allowed in that time because it was preferable to being killed. The reason that the women who had "known a man" were killed was because they tempted Israelite men to idolatry, which was a huge deal. The reason that indicating the women "had not known a man" is important is because the ones who hadn't slept with the Israelites were spared. They were kept as slaves, not for the purposes of raping. I have refuted Con's claims and shown how the existence of a Moral Law indicates there is a Moral Law Giver. It is not mere "herd mentality" because if it were, the stronger impulse would always be given in to, which it is not. And while differences in morality have existed through time, never in such a way as to be a "complete difference. "". .. we do not create, we manipulate. "Granted. But this does not disqualify the need for a Creator of the universe, since God simply didn't have any pre-existing materials to work with when He created the universe. ". .. we know that paintings and buildings were made, a posteriori. "Granted again. But what about when the first painting was painted, or the first building created? Was someone not justified in calling a painting a painting, or a building a building, even if they were new concepts? ". .. the conclusion is self-refuting. "God is a Necessary Being. It is in His nature to exist. It is a difficult concept because God is the only one in existence and we are not able to empirically observe Him. Being a Necessary Being simply means that God is not contingent. His exists independently or anyone, or anything, else. The Earth is fine-tuned for human life to survive. I did not mean to indicate that the universe was also, merely that certain aspects of it are there to help us survive (such as Jupiter's gravity helping to push meteoroids away from us). I only have a few more characters remaining, so I will respond to his objections I didn't get to in the next round, as well as any new arguments. [1] Geisler, Norman L. , The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, pp.91-96[2] Lewis, Clive Staples, Mere Christianity, HarperCollins Books, pp. 9-10[3] ibid, pp.5-6