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

Science can be used to show the universe has a beginning. [1] In fact, the very reason we know the universe had a beginning is the very reason we can know there was no singularity at the beginning. The universe is expanding. Galaxies are moving away from each other. If the universe were eternal, it would be static and unmoving. If there was a singularity at the very beginning of time which resulted in the big bang, it would have no reason to explode and create the universe. There would be no catalyst to cause the explosion of the singularity because if that singularity had been around forever, it would not be able to build up energy into an explosion unless an outside force did it. It would be static and forever remain a singularity. Additionaly, there could have been no energy build-up that started infinitesimally small unless there was an outside force acting on it or the singularity, itself, had a beginning.An infinite regression is not possible. Since an infinite series would theoretically have no beginning and no end, since a series of moments succeed one another, no matter how long the series it would always be possible to add one more. But one more cannot be added to an infinite number. Hence, one can never reach an infinite number. Also, an infinite number of moments can never be traversed. But the number of moments before today has been traversed. Otherwise, today would never have come.Hence, there was not an infinite number of moments before today.Yes, people have believed in contradictory gods, but the fact that people have always been searching for God or gods shows that there is reason to do so. People have been arguing for and against the existence of God for thousands of years. The fact that so many cultures have a "creation myth" or "flood myth," etc., lends credibility to those events actually having occurred.I agree that many people believe in contradictory gods and contradictory religious texts, but that doesn't automatically prove that they are all wrong. One of them could be correct and all the others wrong.As far as proof that God would want to be a part of His creation, I can offer several. First, why would God create a universe inhabited by people if He did not want to be a part of it? Why go to the trouble to create something so vast if He really wanted no part of it? If He creates beings, don't you think He would love them as if they were His own children? Even if you don't believe in a loving God, maybe a vindictive one, He would still want to be a part of His creation to create havoc in it. I don't see there's any reason to suppose that a creative God wouldn't want to be a part of the thing He creates.There are also many evidences to suggest that the Bible is the word of God, and the Bible tells us that God takes part in His creation. First, the Bible was written by over 40 authors from all different walks of life (e.g. fishermen, philosophers, poets, kings, etc.), and from different periods of time (a span of about 1,500 years), yet they speak in complete unity. Suppose a book of family medical advice was composed by forty doctors over 1500 years in different languages on hundreds of medical topics. What kind of unity would it have, even assuming that authors knew what preceding ones had written? Due to superstitious medical practice in the past, one chapter would say that disease is caused by demons who must be exorcised. Another would claim that disease is in the blood and must be drained by blood-letting. Another would claim disease to be a function of mind over matter. At best, such a book would lack unity, continuity and usefulness.We also have the numerous specific prophecies that were fulfilled, many of which were fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. [2]There are many reasons to suppose the Bible is the Word of God, and that same Word tells us that God wants to be a part of His creation.Regarding contradictions: Christians don't claim that the numerous translations and copies are error-free, only that the original texts were inerrant. Unfortunately we don't have the original texts, but we have thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to show that the only errors contained in the Scriptures that we have now don't change any Christian doctrines.Not all scholars agree that the Torah was written that early. In fact, the books that were written were instantly considered canon by the Jews and the Christians (for the New Testament). We even see in the books themselves that they were instantly added to canon, and not just "compiled" later. Moses' books were immediately placed with the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:26), Joshua's writing was added (Josh. 24:26). Following were books by Samuel and others (1 Sam. 10:25). Daniel had a copy of Moses and the Prophets, which included the book of his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2, 10-11).I don't know much about the Hindu Vedas so I can't really comment, but I was offering the evidence for the Bible with many authors as only one bit of evidence supporting its supernatural composition. I would guess that it is lacking in some of the other proofs of its supernatural origin, such as fulfilled prophecy.Time travelers cannot be used as evidence of fulfilled prophecies, especially since there is no proof time travel will ever be possible.Jesus came through the bloodline of King David (Matthew 1:1-6).We do have eyewitness accounts of Jesus, such as Josephus (a Jewish historian) and Pliny the Younger. Using the Bible to prove the Bible true is not circular reasoning. What better way to prove the President lives in the White House than to look in the White House? Also remember that the Bible was not written as "The Bible." It was written as individual books that were compiled later into one, canonical volume (some two- to three-hundred years after the New Testament was written). The Gospels were eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry by people who either knew him or were acquainted with people who knew him.Regarding the Qu'ran, I don't have space to go into it here but possibly next round.Simply because some people accepted it a few thousand years ago doesn't mean everyone did. There were people, even 4,000 years ago, who believed rape was wrong. Just as we do now. It was still morally unacceptable, even if it was accepted back then.The natural explanation still doesn't suffice because there were people who believed as we do now about morality several thousand years ago. Moses gave us the Law which had many things in it that were sinful, including a number of sexual sins. Even if some accepted it back then it was still wrong.I'm sticking with my beliefs because there's no better alternative. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I believe there's good reason to believe that He does. If you can't offer a better alternative, I see no reason to change. Even if morals are simply "evolutionary" and not directly granted by God, you have shown no reason that God didn't simply direct the evolutionary process and use evolution to deliver our morality.There wasn't anything preventing people 2,000 years ago from accessing this morality and many did. Just because some acted in contrast to morality doesn't mean that everyone was. We see in cultures thousands of years old that one ought not to live selfishly. We may disagree in the details, however (such as who we should not be selfish toward).I am running low on characters. I will respond to the rest of Con's round three arguments, as well as any new ones presented, next round.[1] http://www.harvardhouse.com...;[2] Geisler, Norman L. The Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, pp. 609-617