Belief in God is reasonable

I wish we had that additional round but I must provide my rebuttals and arrive at my conclusion this round. I'll summarize your arguments in a series of simplified statements that stay true to your logic while saving char limits.Reasonable evidence #1:con: If god created matter, he would be defying laws of thermodynamics which are laws that are impossible to defy. The Big Bang appeared and wasn't created. Therefore it's unreasonable to believe that god created matter. Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #1:Godnoun"the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." [1]By accepting the definition of "God", it would be unreasonable to accept that the Supreme Being and creator of the universe is constrained by his own laws of creation. Further, it is unreasonable to assume that matter was not created but "appeared" because appearing matter violates the first law of thermodynamics which states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed because "appearing" matter is merely the creation of matter from nothing. Thus, belief in God is reasonable because belief that matter appears is unreasonable according to the first law of thermodynamics.reasonable evidence #2con: The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only in a closed system and earth is not a closed system because it received energy from the sun. Therefore evolutionary origins of life is reasonable.Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #2: The earth does receive the sun's energy. Also asteroids come into the earth's atmosphere. Could this happen in a "closed" system? No. However, because of the nature of earth's balanced processes, many scientists and textbooks classify the earth as a closed system. Here are a few examples: [2] "The Earth is a closed system where materials cycle between the lithosphere (Earth), atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere" [2] "The Earth is a closed system: energy from sunlight enters and “no” matter enters or leaves (except for the rare meteorite)" [3] "Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero." [4] "As a whole, Earth is essentially a closed system Two important implications of Earth being a closed system are 1. The amount of matter in a closed system is fixed and finite 2. If changes are made in one part of a closed system, the results of those changes eventually will affect other parts of the system" Now, my main argument referencing the second law was this: how could upward, complex organization (like evolution into fully-functional human cells) have occurred via mutations if the second law of thermodynamics state that matter is constrained by a down-hill energy gradient and one of increasing disorder?You are saying that the sun empowered this circumvention of the second law of thermodynamics for billions of years. If this were the case, why would plants (that have an upward-complex organization resulting from the sun's energy for a brief time) still die after having an adequate supply of water, nutrients, and light? They die because second law of thermodynamics applies to even the most sensitive living organisms that receive the sun's energy. If this is true, how could you assume that highly complex processes (requiring upward-energy), are bolstered so much by the energy of the sun that they could circumvent the second law of thermodynamics long enough to evolve into more complex processes if plants can't even do it without succumbing to this law within a severely limited life-span? Therefore it is unreasonable to assume that the sun provided the necessary means to circumvent the second law of thermodynamics for life on earth to evolve into an upward, more complex organization of life over billions of years. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume life existed not by processes defying the second law of thermodynamics but in an instance of final-form. Belief in God is reasonable.Reasonable evidence #3con: The universe resulted from a compressed point, not from a chaotic mash. The universal laws of order are unexplainable but do not provide evidence for God. For assuming a God "is", you could assume natural laws "are".Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #3: My point in phrasing it as "a chaotic mash" was that the creation of the world was spontaneous and chaotic. If the world erupted from a single point, it was spontaneous and resulted in a chaotic after-effect resulting in the creation of the world. This is not the focus of my argument. The focus of my argument is the existence of "natural laws" such as gravity, physics, thermodynamics, etc. that are universal laws of order that do not ever change. Order defies spontaneity. Evolution occurred from spontaneity. Therefore, there is no logical reason for universal laws of order to exist. If God exists, these universal laws of order were created by God to naturally maintain order in our universe. For assuming that God "is" and assuming natural laws "are" doesn't take into account that if God exists, as supreme being, then he exists outside of our constraints including time. Natural laws therefore, are reasonable evidence that God exists.Reasonable evidence #4:con: Good and evil do not exist. Good and evil are perceptions based on social influences that were taught to us. Good and evil are not objective. Throughout history there are many examples that perceptions of good and evil are subjective.Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #4: human beings have a conscienceConsciencenoun[1] "the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience."also, I argued for the existence, of good and evil, not for an objective definition of good and evil. People intuitively have a sense of what is good and what is evil. People acting on superstition, such as burning supposed witches, are justifying their actions by labelling them as "witches." This wrongful justification is the case with many examples shown throughout history. The fact remains that justification exists in order to see themselves as "good" and this is why moral laws (such as those in the Bible) are useful for showing us what we already intuitively know but some people wrongfully try to justify.If you believe that good and evil are merely concepts, then everyone in jail has not committed an act of evil. It's only based on your interpretation of their alleged evil. I'm not willing to accept this because I believe that our conscience universally intuitively dictates to all humans what is good and what is evil, and moral laws act as specific reasons to not provide our own justification for what we already intuitively know is good and what is evil.Reasonable evidence #5:con:human life is adapted to earth's conditions rather than the earth being perfectly suitable for life. A series of conditions were all true for life to exist on earth. Other planets exist that can sustain life but aren't the right distance from the sun. Other resources found on earth, like diamonds, exist on other planets too. Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #5: I am not arguing that alien life doesn't exist. A series of perfect conditions must be met in order for life to exist on a planet. What I'm arguing is that these perfect conditions have been met, which are circumstantial evidence in favor of a God creating earth as inhabitable for humans. No other life forms have been found yet despite "billions" of planets that are capable of inhabiting them. Therefore, this is circumstantial evidence in favor of God because the odds are drastically in favor of no life to exist if life was created through means of spontaneity.Reasonable evidence #6:con:Evolving is not the goal of evolution because evolution has no goal. Evolving does not require awareness. Emotion is not needed for our survival but evolution is about change whether it's good or bad change. There is no reason for emotion to exist and doesn't require a reason for existing.Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #6:I stand corrected if I incorrectly made the claim that the goal of evolution was to evolve. There is no goal or desired end result at all. My main argument was the existence of emotion. You claim emotion has no reason to exist. Love is an emotion and love increases people's well-being. Therefore, emotion exists to increase people's well-being. Love increases well-being because love is good and God is the ultimate source of good. Therefore love exists because of God. Because this good exists, we can assume that God exists. We exist to maximize this good via emotion. This is reasonable evidence to suggests that emotion was created by God rather than processes which have no reason.Reasonable evidence #7: con: Beauty is a subjective concept. Parent's think their children are always beautiful and standards of beauty change. Historically, the concept of beauty has changed. Rebuttal to reasonable evidence #7:Again, I'm not arguing for an objective definition of beauty. I'm arguing for the existence of beauty. Since we recognize varying degrees of beauty in something that is beautiful (such as a ruby or diamond) then the pinnacle of perceived beauty existing in the human mind must be God.Remember that I am not debating that God exists. I am debating that there is reasonable evidence to suggest that God exists.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.uvm.edu...[3] https://www.bluffton.edu...[4] http://faculty.uml.edu...