Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism

Let me reiterate by saying I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists with absolute certainty. I’m just saying that on balance of evidence theism is more plausible than not.Also I am not trying to convince my OPP I am trying to convince our audience as you will see. My OPP objection are nothing more than tired somewhat programmed rebuttals. Everything is not all black and white there are shades of gray.God exists:Now we know as shown in the previous round:* Something exists.* You do not get something from nothing.* Therefore a necessary and eternal something exists.* The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.* Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.* Therefore an eternal Creator exists.Former atheist Lee Strobel who arrived at this end result has commented, "Essentially I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything non-life produces life randomness produces fine tuning chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence â€¦ In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview."The next question we must tackle is if an eternal Creator exists (and I have shown that He does)what kind of Creator is He ? Can we conclude things about Him from what He created ? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects ? The answer is YES we can with the following characteristics: * He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).* He must be powerful (exceedingly). * He must be eternal (self-existent).* He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).* He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). * He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.* He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). * He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. * He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.* He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. * He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.* He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). * He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).These things being true we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural, powerful, eternal, omnipresent, timeless/changeless, immaterial, personal, necessary, infinite/singular, diverse yet with unity, intelligent, purposeful, moral, and caring.Last thing to address on the matter of Gods existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist's position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer's position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes "no god," which is what "atheist" means is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler said, "An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition one that denies the existence of something cannot be proved." Example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. It is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more sour than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice. This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God.So does belief in God have intellectual warrant ? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God ? Absolutely. Morality:First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s isn’t. Think about it in atheism there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral should and shouldn't. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs. In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning. Let me explain and show you why. What if there were a global economic meltdown and social turmoil ensued so that robbing people at gunpoint to get food became common place. Robbery would then be a social norm. Would such a norm be wrong? If it is not wrong, then you affirm situational ethics and can’t complain when the situation suits somebody else’s ideals and you get robbed at gunpoint. Of course, this would lead to anarchy.If you say such theft is wrong, then why is it wrong? If it is your opinion that it is wrong, that’s nice, but opinions don’t make ethical standards. If you said it is wrong because it is wrong, you are just begging the question. Besides, that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that would imply a moral law giver God.Some atheists maintain that the best moral system is that which brings the greatest happiness, the least amount of suffering, and the greatest freedom for as many people as possible. That is a nice sentiment, but it doesn’t work. Take a look at slavery, for example. The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that a minority of people should suffer in bondage. This way, the greatest amount of freedom for the majority is ensured. But if the atheist says that it is wrong to enslave then why is it wrong? Because he said so? If he says its wrong because the minority is suffering, so what? Why is suffering wrong? It may be unpleasant. But, from an atheistic worldview, why is it morally wrong to oppress a minority to benefit the majority? Atheism can’t help us here. It just isn’t up to the task of providing solid answers. Let me reiterate by saying that atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason. By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self contradictory, and can lead to anarchy.Conclusion:So I think that theism offers us a better foundation for the objective moral values that we all hold. I'm convinced that on balance the weight of the evidence tips clearly on the side of theism.