Belief in God is reasonable

Thanks con.Yes, my burden of proof is to show that belief in God is reasonable, not that God exists. Although belief in God certainly implies that he exists, I am not trying to prove the existence of God.There are two logical theories on how life came to be: 1) by a supreme being or 2) by natural means.I am arguing that evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive because if I can prove that evolution would not be able to occur by natural means, then the competing theory, God, becomes the most likely logical explanation. I get what you're saying though, that even if evolution were proven without a doubt there would still be no contradicting evidence of God. However, if evolution isn't proven and can actually be shown not to be true, then this logic doesn't follow. As for Russell's Teapot analogy, it is possible there are an infinite number of means the universe could've come about but it isn't logical to argue for something we know nothing about. We have some evidence of an intelligent designer. Russel's teapot analogy doesn't apply.Rebuttal for evidence #1My argument, although unstructured, in my opening argument was implied to be this:Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyedMatter and energy existsThe existence of matter and energy contradicts laws saying that they can't existGod must have created all matter that exists con: "In the laws of thermodynamics these laws have applied without fail, but they do not describe the how or why questions of the laws themselves."That is essentially my "natural law" argument for God. Universal, unchanging laws of order would defy any universe that originated spontaneously. You could be arguing that we don't yet understand this law enough to know that the law can't be defied or formulaically exploited in different ways, but no natural law has ever been shown to be contradicted or formulaically exploited. Zero energy universe: Your conclusion is contradictory to your explanation.con: "The law of conservation of energy is not violated because the particles when they exist form a negative gravitational potential on a short enough timescale within the planck time.". . .con: Therefore, there are experimentally supported theories which explain the origin of the energy content of the universe without need for a God If the net energy is still 0, this wouldn't explain energy creation at all. Rebuttal for evidence #2con: First of all, this argument seems to just be an argument ad ignorantum. As it provides no positive argument for his God except to say there’s a potential hole/unknown in a competing theory. If there are two competing theories, such as intelligent design and creation, then if one of the two theories becomes more unlikely the other becomes more likely.I admit my definition of the second law of thermodynamics was worded in the general sense, but my logic follows that if energy is unable to do as much work by following a downward energy gradient it's not logical to believe that life followed an upward energy gradient using the power of the sun. As I stated in the first round, if plants (that are extremely sensitive to the sun) can organize themselves into more complex structures for a brief time before succumbing to the second law given a perfect supply of water, nutrients and light, how does it follow that all of life has followed an upward energy gradient for billions of years? Rebuttal for evidence #3con: his third evidence is a subtle shift of the BoP. As pro did not attempt to demonstrate why the Unchanging Laws of Order’ would defy any logical explanation. If life originated from spontaneity and given that order defies spontaneity, then believing that spontaneity governs order like natural laws that are universal and unchanging would be illogical.Rebuttal for evidence #5I am glad we can agree on this point although we've reached different conclusions. This point serves as supporting evidence in favor of a God given the sheer unliklihood of life to exist at all. That was the extent of what I was trying to convey.I look forward to your rebuttals to my remaining reasonable evidences.