Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

Whatever begins to exist has a cause. "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. "Note that Pro still does not make a real distinction between God and the rest of existence, he merely asserts that God is "infinite" with zero explanation of why nothing else could be. "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. ""Matter and energy" should not be equivocated with existence. This reasoning cannot be applied to the universe because it consists of spacetime and does not necessarily require matter or energy to exist. And if we're simply going to ask the question of why matter and energy exist in the first place, then we are no longer talking about infinite regress or the necessity of God. The Ontological Argument. I am having a difficult time understanding my opponent's point. Existence is still a prcondition of omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. If we follow Pro's line of reasoning than the "possibility" of existing isn't nearly enough- we have to establish that God must exist, not merely that he could theoretically exist. Therefore it is 2 that does not follow rather than 4. 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? "Pro ignored and strawmanned my argument- my explanation for why the appearance of design in nature was an illusion was that our brains are designed to understand the universe under our own terms and form conceptions that could be processed. Complexity is a completely subjective thing, and the ability to discern it is largely a function of familiarity and cultural context. There is a difference between HUMAN design and the random appearance of design- human designs have easily identifiable qualities to us and were made for human purposes. "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. "There can only be observers where there can be observers. If we lived in an environment in which we couldn't have evolved, we wouldn't exist to know it. If Con believes that the planets revolving around the sun are evidence of design, he should perhaps learn what an orbit is: [. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. In addition, the percieved stability of our solar system is simply a consequence of us not being long-lived enough to discern their instability- in fact, the orbits of the planets are chaotic rather than perfectly ordered, as my opponent imagines: [. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...] "Con offers no reason why evolution is not random and just happened. "Pro ignores me again- I gave an in-depth explanation last round of why natural selection was fundamentally non-random. "He simply offers adaptation which I agree with. Con has not shown why we actually adapt and what caused us to exist. " Why we exist in the first place is very simple (at least in concept): Self-replicating molecules first came into being, and certain molecules which had traits that allowed them to outcompete others survived and replicated more, beginning the process of natural selection. "If no life caused us to exist then we should be as intelligent as animals but we are not, we are much more intelligent. "Intelligence is in itself an adaptation. Need for a mind. Pro doesn't appear to offer an argument but merely reiterates his previous points. 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. "Pro entirely missed the point of my objections. We don't NEED to have morality and we don't NEED to have anything else than preconceived social instincts. "In the absence of God it’s not evident that cruelty would be wrong or right. "Why is it wrong? It's not self-evident that it is. Of course I wouldn't do it because of my social conditioning, but why must there necessarily be an objective imperative not to? "God's commands does not imply why there should be good reasons to love, have kindness, and patience because they ingrained in our genes. "This isn't an argument. Why can't they simply be ingrained on our genes? Fallacy #1: The Euthyphro Dilemma. "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. "If we accept God's nature as the standard for value (and I may be confusing this but Pro made it hard to understand), that still doesn't prove that we have objective moral imperatives as a result. Pro commits the Is-ought fallacy by assuming that God's standard requires that we have an objective standard of our own to follow. Hume's Fork explains this:"By Hume's fork, relations among ideas are strictly divided from states of actuality. Thus, among the necessary versus contingent (concerning reality), the a priori versus a posteriori (concerning knowledge), and the analytic versus synthetic (concerning statement), relations among ideas or the abstract are necessary, a priori, and analytic, whereas actualities or the concrete are contingent, a posteriori, and synthetic. " -[. http://en.wikipedia.org...]Fallacy #2: Appeal to consequences. "Con never offers another option but animal instincts. "And, for the final time, Pro hasn't shown that animal instincts aren't acceptable. It is not an established premise that morality is valid. This is a "common sense" assumption made by my opponent, which he has still thus far failed to prove. I now conclude this round.