It is rational to say that a higher power (AKA God) exist.

It seems that my opponent has little answer to the issues raised in my response. Let's start from the beginning. I'll be perfectly honest and say that I do not understand how my opponent's question - "why would God be bound by something he created" - is remotely relevant to the issue I raised. My opponent is seeking to show that the universe 'began' (and therefore, according to his logic, had a cause.) It's no good asking a question relying on the characteristics of god before he has provided convincing evidence that this god even exists. Now, my opponent continues to falsely assume that just because something has a cause, then the 'creator' chose to cause the said something. Of course, we can think of many counterexamples. The sun provides the earth with heat and light, thereby causing plants to grow, but the sun itself didn't choose to do anything, because it has no mind with which to choose. Similarly, my opponent fails to address the possibility that maybe the universe came into existence as a result of a similarly 'unchosen' cause. He makes the assertion that it must have been this way because the universe isn't lifeless, but he provides no evidence with which to support this assertion. Now I don't know about anyone else, but the link provided doesn't work for me. I am aware of what the fine tuning argument is however, and I would have been happy to respond to it had my opponent actually articulated it; but since he seems to be relying on another website to make his case, I see no reason why I should do so. Sources are for backing up claims of fact, not for making your argument for you. My opponent then goes on to provide very weak replies to two of my examples of a poorly designed universe - namely appendices and cystic fibrosis. (I notice though that he has no answer at all when it comes to asteroids.) He essentially gives up when it comes to the former, saying that maybe they have a purpose of which we are unaware. That argument might have held a tiny little bit of weight if we had no idea what the appendix was used for in the past (digesting tough material) but seeing as we do, this argument has no legs at all. Furthermore, his explanation that Cystic Fibrosis and other such genetic diseases 'make people appreciate life' is equally flimsy. For a start, you cannot appreciate life when you're dead. Now, it's a pity that my opponent will not get a chance to make a further response, because in light of this explanation, I would have liked to ask him whether or not he believes in the existence of heaven, or some kind of perfect afterlife. If, as I imagine it would have been, the answer were yes, then I would have questioned why suffering and pain are required to appreciate this life, yet not heaven. My opponent ends with the familiar circular argument, namely that if god is timeless and created time, then things beginning to exist have causes. Sadly, since he is trying to show that "things beginning to exist have causes" implies the existence of god, this clearly gets us nowhere. I also note, having got to the end of his argument, that he has not chosen to dispute the Theory of Evolution, which does destroy most of his entire argument single-handedly. I claim therefore that he has presented you with no solid reasons whatsoever to believe that a conscious being of a higher power exists, and that he has completely failed to come even close to refuting my claims that if such an entity does exist, then the universe should be completely different to how it actually is. For these reasons, I claim that we have solid reasons to consider it exceedingly irrational to believe in a conscious being of a higher power, and I urge you all to vote against the motion. Thank you.