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

As I have been running out of room for my arguments, I will hit the more important aspects of Con's argument as well as a leftover from the previous round.Alleged Prophecies in the Qu'ranThe evidence that prophecies in the Qu'ran have been fulfilled are unconvincing. The suras most often cited are those in which Muhammad promised victory to his troops. But what religious military leader is there who might not say to his troops: "God is on our side; we are going to win. Fight on!"? Further, remembering that Muhammad is known as "the prophet of the Sword," with his greatest number of conversions coming after he had forsaken the peaceful but relatively unsuccessful means of spreading his message, it should be no surprise that he would predict victory.Considering the zeal of Muslim forces, who were promised Paradise for their efforts (cf. sura 22:58-59, 3:157-58; 3:170-71), it is no surprise they were so often victorious. Finally, it is little wonder so many "submitted," considering Muhammad commanded that "the punishment of those Who wage war against God And his Apostle, and strive With might...Is: execution, or crucifixion. Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land" (sura 5:36).The only substantive prediction was about the Roman victory over the Persian army at Issus. Sura 30:2-4 reads: "The Roman Empire Has been defeated -- In a land close by: But they, (even) after (This) defeat of theirs, Will soon be victorious -- within a few years."This prediction is less than spectacular. The defeat of the Romans by the Persians in the capture of Jerusalem took place about 614 or 615. The counteroffensive did not begin until 622 and the victory was not complete until 625. This would be at least ten or eleven years, not "a few" spoken by Muhammad.Uthman's edition of the Qu'ran had no vowel points, these not being added until much later. [1] Hence, the word sayaghlibuna, "they shall defeat," could have been rendered, with the change of two vowels, sayughlabuna, "they shall be defeated." [2] Even if this ambiguity were removed, the prophecy is neither long-range nor unusual. One would have expected the defeated Romans to bounce back. It took little more than a perceptive reading of the trends of time to forecast such an event. At best, it could have been a good guess. In any event, there appears to be no sufficient proof that it is supernatural.The evidence that Muhammad possessed a truly supernatural gift of prophecy is lacking. His prophecies are vague and disputable. It is far easier to read meaning back in to them after the event than it would have been to see the meaning before hand.Static UniverseCon has not offered any proof to show that there was, indeed, a singularity at the beginning of the universe, or how a singularity that had been around forever could have built up energy without an outside force acting upon it. For example, we know that one of Newton's laws says that an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. If there is a stationary rock, it will remain stationary for all of eternity unless someone comes upon it and moves it. This alleged singularity is nothing but an ad hoc explanation to avoid a more obvious arrival at the belief in a Creator.I am not claiming an argument from ignorance. I am stating that a Creator who created the universe is a much more reasonable explanation than a natural accident creating the universe, especially since we know the universe had a beginning.Eternity can apply to God but not to the universe for this reason: First, we know the universe had a beginning so it is not eternal. We also know that we exist. If we did not exist, we could not be here to question our own existence. Not to mention the famous line by Descarte, "I think, therefore, I am." However, we are contingent beings. It is not necessary for us to exist. Indeed, there was a point in which humanity did not exist. Due to the law of causality, we know that nothing cannot produce something. Where once the universe did not exist, a universe could not come into existence unless an outside Intelligence causes it to. God is an uncreated Being. We are contingent upon an outside Intelligence for our continued existence. Since we have been created, we could only have been created by someone greater than ourselves, a Necessary Being. Whereas we can not existence, God cannot not exist. There is no other explanation by how we can even be here.Quest for TruthThe fact that people find contradictory gods does not prove anything, per se, but the fact that so many people are searching for truth lends credibility that a) there is more to life than what we see and feel around us, and b) there are good reasons for accepting belief in a supernatural Being. It is more reasonable to believe in a Creator than to believe in a natural creation.I think it's fairly evident that God created this universe with us in mind. The world has been fine-tuned for our survival, and the universe around us (while much of it is hostile to human life) has at least been designed to aid in our survival (for example, Jupiter is there to deflect large asteroids away from Earth with its gravitational pull).Unless God has no actual control over His creation, then just by virtue of our being here we can safely assume we were created by God.The claim of the original texts' reliability can be confirmed, to a 99.99% accuracy. We have numerous manuscript evidence, more so than for any other ancient work. [3] The Gospels were, indeed, written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John were Jesus' disciples, Luke and Mark knew the disciples personally.Old TestamentI may have misunderstood what you were arguing. Keep in mind that the Torah refers to the first five books of the Old Testament.Yes, Daniel is accepted to have existed around the sixth century BC. And regarding the other examples, those were still historical people writing those books. Just because those particular accounts were not historical doesn't mean they weren't historically relevant.There is evidence that the prophecies were fulfilled by God. The prophecies were specific and written well before they were fulfilled, as we see in the New Testament.Regarding Matthew's genealogy, there is a problem here. No true son of Joseph could have been heir to the throne of David, because of Jeconiah's curse (Jeremiah 22: 24, 30). However, being the legal son of Joseph, Jesus had a claim to David's throne. And the genealogy of Luke shows how Jesus had a claim to the throne of David. [4]Regarding Josephus and Pliny, I did misspeak. They obviously couldn't have been eyewitnesses. However, we do have the four Gospels which were written as individual accounts by eyewitnesses. It wasn't until a few hundred years later that all the Scriptures considered inspired were compiled into. We do have other eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry as contained in apocryphal books (e.g. the Apocalypse of Peter) which are not considered inspired in the same way as the other 66 books are, but are still around. They are not considered inspired because they have some teachings that contradict Scripture. In fact, there were even disagreements from early church fathers as to what books should actually be considered canonical.Again, I am running low on characters so I will continue next round.[1] Spencer, H., Islam and the Gospel of God, p. 21.[2] Tisdall, W.S.C., The Source of Islam, p. 137. [3] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, pp. 531-538, and 548-553. [4] http://www.messiahnj.org...;