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

I will only reply to Con's last round. Regarding The Qu'ranAs the Resolution is atheists are not logically justified in disbelieving in God, it's not really essential that I disprove all the prophecies given by the Qu'ran. Because if they were genuine prophecies that have come true, then that would lend credibility to the Qu'ran as being the words of God and therefore would go to support that there is, in fact, a God. It's not really essential in this debate to prove which religious document, the Bible or the Qu'ran, is the superior document. Regarding the alleged singularityI have shown how belief in a God is more reasonable than in a singularity. The "singularity" would have had no reason to make a big bang and create the universe unless acted upon by an outside force. Again, I am not arguing from ignorance. A singularity is a non-intelligent source. If it were there before the universe began, it would be static through all of time. There is much better reason to suppose an intelligent Creator than a non-intelligent singularity, proven by the fact that we are, in fact, here. My argument that the Bible was written by many different authors does not failed simply because it was compiled later. All the Biblical texts, written by many different authors, were compiled into the Bible, into one volume. Additionally, the Old Testament is accepted by Jews and they are still waiting for their Messiah. This is not a prima facie contradiction with the New Testament, because the New Testament shows that Jesus is the Messiah the Jews have been waiting for. Many Jews became Christians based on Jesus' ministry. As for the entire universe, we are God's central creation. There was no reason to make any other planets habitable because this is the planet that we created for us to live on. Because there is another planet in the Goldilocks zone does not disprove that we were created to live on this world, just that the odds are astronomical that this one planet (or perhaps, two -- though a second is equally unlikely because simply being in the zone of the solar system comfortable for life is not the only prerequisite for life) would have developed with exactly the right circumstances for life to evolve. It may be simple church tradition that the authorship has been attributed to the authors of the Gospels, but the Catholic church also traces its roots back to the Apostles. So they are reliable in their determination of the authorship of the four gospels. Matthew and Luke may borrow heavily from Mark, but that was because it was written first. They may have wanted to make sure they were getting some of their facts straight. Matthew and Luke also contain things not written in the book of Mark. I have adequately shown why it is not logically justified to disbelieve in God but that belief in God (or a god or gods) is more rational simply because the odds are astronomical we could have developed on our own. Even putting aside the arguments about which religious document is superior, just the fact alone that the universe is not eternal, nor could an eternal singularity have existed that arbitrarily decided to explode into the universe as we know it now, proves that belief in God is more logical than not believing in one.