It is reasonable to believe that God exists

Ontological Argument If it was foreknown what one were to absolutely do, then that person has no other choice than to forego what he is absolutely supposed to do. My opponent mentions that one can decide against it, which is incorrect, because the being then would not be omniscient. 1. A being is omniscient and knows every choice a human being will make 2. That human being is then predestined to do whatever he is foreknown to do and cannot decide against it, otherwise the seemingly omniscient being is not omniscient 3. Therefore, if one is predestined, he does not have freewill This is of incredibly elementary apprehension, and because you have been brainwashed, you keep pulling fallible logic out of your butt to justify such a case. You need to stop lying to yourself and let your brain do some work. COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT My opponent says I dismiss the cosmological argument when that's not true. There are more scientific theories of the universe prior to the big bang that contradict the cosmological argument, but since they are theories I cannot know for certain which one is of truth, so therefore, as a skeptic, I conclude that this cannot be known for sure at this point in time with the knowledge humans can ascertain. I accept the possibility of the cosmological argument but I do not adhere to it, as any one reasonable should. IMMATERIAL "Considering all of the physical world came into existence a finite time ago" That is something we cannot know for certain. There are theories that the physical universe did indeed exist before the big bang. So, thus, my conclusion that the creator is material, is still viable. "So is my opponent saying that a thought cannot create an action?" An incredibly poor example as an action is not material. Swinging my arms in the air does not make matter. A more proper example would be the number "three" creating a chair, which I have never seen. A CONSCIOUS "In Con's example, the efficient cause is the wind, rain and sun. This is obvious. the material cause is the plant and seed. This is also obvious. So yes, an effective cause is needed." My opponent has listed the efficient cause and the material cause in this case for a cause and an event, but notice that a conscious is still not present. My opponent has failed to realize that i was not arguing for the case of an "efficient" cause nor a "material" one, but instead, I was arguing against the case that a conscious is needed in a cause and event, and my opponent affirmed the case that a conscious is not needed for a material and efficient cause in the quote above. Non-physical Mind "If when Occam's Razor, when applied to the cosmological argument even makes it PROBABLE that a maximally great being exists, then my Ontological argument has succeeded in proving Premise 1 and therefore God exists." Sure probable, but I will certainly not adhere to it, nor anyone reasonable until demonstrable and evident proof is given. "Additionally, a number of Maximally Great Beings (Omnipotent Beings) is simply impossible" I have never stated in my argument that these beings were perfect. Therefore, my original argument is still probable. Morality "Does he think that it is alright morally to steal from an old woman?" For an example, say my father is currently having a hypoglycemic attack and is in dire need of some sugary substance, say orange juice, and to add to the example, let's say I'm very poor and the only person within my view is an old lady carrying some cash. I do not have time to ask for the money, and so i take it and buy an orange juice with it to save my father. My actions were justified. I can concoct any scenario to justify ANY moral acts even to the point of genocide. Morals are dependent on the environment, not dependent on a law giver. This is incredibly evident with relation to biblical scriptures. Would old testament law be relevant today? Not one bit, as our situation, circumstances, and environment do not provide for the old testament law. What about slavery in the New testament? Again, not even one bit. Morals are relative, not absolute. Objective morality would say that It is wrong to kill in ALL cases, when Subjective morality would say that there are cases where killing would be justifiable. CONCLUSION My opponent has not given any original arguments and each argument have dozens of rebuttals that can be found with the help of Google, and thus I see my opponent's beliefs as one that he cannot himself defend, but must rely on old and falliable ones that have been refuted from every direction. Moreover, these arguments have been made by adherents of numerous religions, and so it is of inherent falsehood how such arguments can prove every god of every religion, and to strengthen my point, when I presented a biblical example, seeing that my opponent is a Christian, he was quick to reject it knowing that these arguments did not actually prove his God, but just a hypothetical perfect being. In conclusion, if one were to see the logic in your argument, which i doubt, they would be at best, an agnostic which accepts the possibility of a being, but does not adhere to a religion. In essence, no one will be able to prove that a specific God exists, but that's where faith(irrational belief) comes in, right?