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

“But I would ask him to prove that there was a singularity that has always existed and expanded into the universe, otherwise we can simply dismiss it as an ad hoc explanation to avoid having to believe in a God who created the universe.” Pro has attempted to use Science to support his claim that the universe had a beginning. Expansion does not “prove” that the universe is not static either, and it is a BELIEF based on deduction that the universe has been expanding SINCE it was packed in a single point, I.e. A singularity. In other words, the same deduction that leads us to the belief that the universe had a beginning, is also the same deduction that leads us to believe that the universe was a singularity, and that singularity was the beginning of the Big Bang. Pro has attempted to dismiss the very argument he used to support his premise that the universe had a beginning. “There must have been Someone behind it, otherwise a static singularity that has always existed would have no reason to undergo a big bang and create a universe.” Yes, there could have been a catalyst. It might have been an increase in energy build-up that started infinitesimally small. It might be an infinite regression of universes that are created, then destroyed by way of big crunch, then created again. There are many possibilities. None of these require intelligence or sentience, and they all only require nature, something which we know exists. So I ask Pro, what makes God the preferable possibility? “However, we have much evidence to suggest a God, not the least of which are all the people who believe in some kind of Deity.” People used to believe in Unicorns and Faeries and Leprechauns. People believe in contradictory Gods and deities. This is not evidence of anything, anymore than belief in unicorns is evidence that Unicorns exist. “There are many religious texts claiming to be the words of God.” What makes these religious texts more reliable than texts that talk of Faeries and Lepricons? Furthermore, the “Words” of these Gods contradict each other in these many religious texts. So, if the message is false, then the source is questionable at best. “If there is a God who created our universe and wants to be a part of it, then certainly He would have spoken to us and given us religious texts so that we can know Him and know what He wants of His creation.” Based on what Evidence does Pro claim that this God would want to be a part of his creation? “The books of the Bible were written by over 40 authors from all different walks of life, yet they spoke in complete unity.” First off, there are contradictions in both the Old and New testament. Secondly, they were not from all walks of life, modern scholars agree that the Torah was written around 600 BC, from oral traditions and compiled together in 400 BC.(1) The Jewish kingdom of Judah had already existed as well as the Jews who were already well versed in their own history and mythology. In other words, they were from the same walk of life, I.e. Jewish. Furthermore, we can reasonable assume the same thing happened to the Torah as it did with the New Testament, which excluded texts that were against the canonical gospels and branded them as apocrypha or heretical. Thirdly, the Hindu Vedas were also a result of many authors after oral traditions, compiling the vedas together into one book, speaking in complete unity. “Plus we have several Old Testament books that gave prophecies that were fulfilled by the events recorded in the New Testament.” Muslims claim the Quran has fulfilled prophecies as well(2). Furthermore, the prophecies provide three problems. Firstly, Prophecies being fulfilled does not tell us whether the claim of the source of the prophecy is true. If I am a time-traveller, I can make prophecies that will undoubtedly come true. Secondly, failed prophecies of the New Testament exist, such as the prophecy that the messiah will have the bloodline of King David, which Jesus did not. Many more are the reasons why Jews reject Jesus as their Messiah. Thirdly, we have no contemporary accounts for the life of Jesus outside the bible, at all, nor do we have direct eyewitness accounts. Much like how you cannot prove the Quran is historically accurate by using the Quran itself, you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is true. “people know that murder is simply wrong, and that is why they don't murder.” Today, we know that murder is simply wrong because our morals have evolved. Just like we know today that a soldier who rapes a woman whose country he invaded is simply wrong. Yet, 4000 years ago, people thought this was not wrong, but acceptable. It took a long time to understand that this was wrong, but it does not change the fact that we used to think it was right. “But people all the time put their lives in danger to help friends in need, or even complete strangers.” This is seen in nature as well. Vervet monkeys will make noise, alerting predators to its location to let other monkeys to escape(3). “Humans are higher than animals and have the ability to make moral decisions and act upon free will.” Except that we are clearly the product of our society. Our higher morals that we have today were non-existent 2000, 3000, 5000 years ago. What happened, is that our morals evolved. This is in contrast to your claim that God gave us all the same moral law, and completely in sync with the stance that our morals are learned, that morality is dependant on the natural mental construct. The natural explanation suffices here.“If you have a better explanation, please share.” Argument from ignorance. Because you cannot come up with a better explanation, you're going to stick with yours. Logical fallacy. “nothing has ever amounted to a complete difference.” Again, the same could be said of animals. However, nature explains this, as we see with increased brain capacity, that morals also increase. It has to do with benefit. Animals understand this, because they are capable, mentally, to. Bacteria do not. “They were not acting on "herd mentality" but on a much deeper morality that said that all men are created equal” In other words, Morality evolved. I would like to ask Pro, what prevented people 2000 years ago from accessing this deeper morality? “They were kept as slaves, not for the purposes of raping.” First off, even the male children were to be slaughtered, no matter how young. There is no reason to kill the young male children if they were to be enslaved. Secondly, no. Dueteronomy 21:10 will explain this better: When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Clearly Moses was speaking of forced marriage and rape.“Was someone not justified in calling a painting a painting, or a building a building, even if they were new concepts?” Depends. As Arthur Clarke puts it, Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. “God is a Necessary Being.” Only if Theism is correct and we assume that the universe has to be created by God. If this premise is true, then the conclusion that a God exists does not matter, therefore this argument is also self-refuting due to the fact that the premise is assuming what the argument is trying to prove. Lets assume God exists, therefore God exists. “I did not mean to indicate that the universe was also” You kinda did. You said earth AND the universe was fine-tuned. “merely that certain aspects of it are there to help us survive” None of this requires a God and is statistically inevitable. Source: 1. Blenkinsopp, Joseph The Pentateuch: An introduction to the first five books of the Bible 2. http://www.alislam.org... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...