Theism is more reasonable than Atheism

Thank you Con for your acceptance. In this debate I will offer two main contentions as to why theist are more reasonable than atheist. I will offer inside each contention sub-sets that should give a foundation for my main contentions. C1) God necessarily exist. C1A - Whatever begins to exist has a cause Premise 1 seems obviously true as not to need defending. Objects don't pop into existence. They begin and end in a series of causes and effects. Every event is caused by, and determined by, some event or events that precede it in time.[1] What about our universe, did it have a cause? Extrapolation of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity shows infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. This singularity is also known as the Big Bang, which can be considered the birth of our universe.[2] Therefore giving us reason to think the universe had a beginning and a cause. One could ask why God is the exception to the rule. The reason God is the exception is because He never came into being but always was. As defined above, the substance must begin to exist. Therefore God is a necessary cause for life as we have it. C1B - The Ontological Argument Plantinga: I. There is a possible world where a being has maximal greatness. 2. Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds. 3. Necessarily, a being is maximally excellent in all possible worlds only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. 4. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world. 5. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness exists in all possible worlds.[3] The Ontological argument purports to be an a priori[4] proof of God's existence. Starting with premises that do not depend on experience for justification and it proceeds by logical means to a conclusion that God exists. This view shows the atheist as not just mistaken but inconsistent in claiming to be reasonable yet denying God's probability.[5] This leads me to another argument that shows scientific reason to believe in God. C1C - The Teleological Argument 1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose. 2. The universe resembles these human artifacts. 3. Therefore: It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose. 4. However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is. 5. Therefore: There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.[6] Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. The evidence for design is endless, so, I offer two examples. a. DNA - genetic links unnaturally complex in size, function, and coded information. It is far too complex for random development.[7] b. First Law of Thermodynamics - supports the supernatural model of origins. Energy is not created naturally and the universe is matter and energy. Therefore, the universe must have a supernatural creator. Atheistic models do not conform to the data available. Intelligent design offers a consistent explanation for observed data from all life. This model is based off empirical testing and scientific reasoning. The atheistic model cannot offer better alternative explanations for our order and design. For us to have order in place there must be a mind to give law to that order. I submit order has a lawgiver who gives moral grounding. C2) God is necessary for morality I do not intend to imply that everyone who has morality needs to believe in God. What I will contend is humans have a moral truth's that comes from God. Therefore all people can have morality even if they do not believe in God. If there is no lawgiver then there is no objective moral value. This would mean there is no code of ethics that is universally valid, it simply would be about how we feel or what we decide.[8] By the atheistic view we have no order and therefore have no reason to have morality separate from other animals. This goes further into intelligent design, we cannot have higher conscious than other animals if not for a intelligent law giver. C2A. Atheism has no basis Atheism contends that only through social conditioning do we find acts which we find taboo and then we render them immoral. This thinking does nothing to really decide what is moral or not. By this explanation it seems morality(rights & wrongs) is just an illusion. Atheism fails to present an adequate basis for thinking in a naturalistic outlook. It offers no value, conscious, personal or materialistic process that produces the type of moral values we place on ourselves.[9] Until my opponent addresses this point and offers a atheistic moral process, I will leave this point where it lies. If Con does claim atheism has moral basis he then will be incompatible with secularism. C2B. Theism has a basis As I have shown above, we have much reason to believe a maximum great being exist and with Him comes a maximum great goodness. If a maximum great being does exist then it seems reasonable to think we have maximum truth values on goodness and badness. A maximum badness would consist of values that are opposite to maximum goodness. Unlike atheism, theism offers many reasons why we have moral truth values within us. Theism gives explanation for why we as human beings have certain moral behaviors ingrained. Things like rape and child abuse are considered immoral. From the atheistic side we are just animals and we make moral decisions as a herd. But, in the animal kingdom we see rape and parental neglect and we never think of it as immoral behavior. We have things like love and charity as human beings. If there are no moral truth values in life then things like love and charity are also just a instinct for survival. God exist, so objective moral values & duties exist. If a Maximally great being(ca2&3) is necessary then it follows that maximum goodness from Him exist. If a maximum goodness does exist then it logically follows that Laws were handed down by Him therefore requiring duty. Our moral experience works with our sensory experience and we perceive truths that we hold as morals. Just like our sensory abilities in the physical world we also apprehend internal moral by our natural senses. I contend God has given those moral senses to human beings with some becoming more accepting than others. There is no reason to deny that we have moral truths handed down from a higher cause. Summation I have shown logically that God probably exist. I have shown through scientific evidence our entire universe shows it was designed. I have implied that the designer gave internal laws that we call morals. I have shown that the morals are grounded throughout humanity. Therefore theism is grounded in rational thought from the surrounding universe. Atheism denies these claims and stays grounded in natural means which can never account for the universe, complexity, moral values and duties, and the logical argument for God. Resources: [1] http://www.sfu.ca... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.lastseminary.com... [4] http://plato.stanford.edu... [5] http://www.princeton.edu... [6] http://www.qcc.cuny.edu... [7] http://www.uark.edu... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.paulcopan.com...