“Nothing comes into existence out of nothing.”
This is begging the question. Something may very well come from nothing. I will let this fellow answer how that can happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Even if only nothing comes from nothing, one needs to show evidence of that. Simply saying it does not make it true.

“2.) Objective moral values do exist.”
This is also begging the question. Please show me some objective moral values. You do not get to point at a holy book and say “There they are!”; you need to show that they are truly objective, and not just a complex system of situational ethics. For example “Thou shall not kill” has a large number of exceptions in the bible and a number of times when killing is actually demanded.
Beating (and even executing) children has been considered moral for a very long time, such as in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Have you never head the phrase “spare the rod, spoil the child”?

Genocide is immoral? It isn’t in certain circumstances, according to 1 Samuel 15:2-3.

Rape? Well, in certain circumstances you get executed, in others you pay a fine and get married (Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

“the fine-tuning of the universe”
Again, this is begging the question. You are simply declaring that the universe is fine-tuned for life and expecting it to be true. Considering that over 99% of the universe (and at least 80% of the planet Earth) is hostile to life (at least human life) seems to bring into question the fine-tuning of the universe for life.

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE for things not seen.”
This describes an emotional state, a feeling. Feelings are by definition subjective. Subjective feelings do not give objective evidence. Once again, simply declaring that something is evidence, does not make it evidence. On cannot reliably “feel” one’s way through a calculus exam, for example. Would you fly on a 747 if you knew the head mechanic “felt” his way through the repairs?

“naturalism of the gaps”
The only rational response to a lack of evidence about how something happened is the phrase “I don’t know how it happened”. To say “I have no evidence, so it must have been a super-powerful supernatural entity who did it” is irrational.

“Why would a human be any more rational than an ape on the naturalistic worldview?”
Humans are very irrational. We do all kinds of irrational things, such as the housing debt bubble that helped cause the recession we are now experiencing. Look up the large number of psychological studies on irrational human behavior.
Your statement is also begging the question. How do you know that apes are more irrational than humans? Given the tools they have to work with (lack of speech ability, relatively clumsy hands, inability to swim, a lack of understanding of how to make complex tools, etc) they may be very rational.

“Given theism, it’s extremely easy to believe that we have true knowledge because we were created by a rational being and we are capable of being rational.”
Yes exactly, it is very easy to believe that you have true knowledge. This is why “only about 5% of the entire worlds population are atheists.”

Alright, here we go.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1.) Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2.) The Universe began to exist.
___________________________________
3.) The Universe had a cause.

Now premise (1) is obvious. Nothing comes into existence out of nothing. You don’t sit in your room and wonder if a tiger is going to appear out of nowhere and eat you. Even in black holes protons and such fluctuate into existence but in black holes you have 1.) space, and 2.) energy. Nothing comes from Nothing, Nothing ever does.

Now, premise (2) is also pretty obvious based on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTATION. First, scientifically, the universe having a beginning roughtly 15 billion years ago is pretty much universally recognized by scientists. You can take the Big Bang model, for example, we all know that one. And secondly, you can look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which tells us that the usable energy in the universe is deteriorating so obviously at one point in the distant past it was all usable. And because there is less and less usable energy we can see that the universe is not eternal or else the amount of usable energy would be constant.

Philosophically, if the universe were eternal then you would have an infinate number of past events and never come to “today.”

So, we see that the universe begane to exist, so obviously the universe had a cause because things don’t pop into existence out of nothing. Now, we must remember that time, space, energy and matter all came into existence at the Big Bang. There was complete nothingness. Not even dead space. Read any book on cosmology and you’ll get the same information. Now, if things don’t come into existence by themselves, and there was no physical or spacial existence, then we know the universe was created, which, of course, would mean there needs to be a creator( and before you try to argue that God needs a creator, it’s been refuted for over 2000 years. If God needed a cause, which according the Monotheism He doesnt, then there would be an infinate regress and we would never come to a first cause which is extremely unscientific) which implies God.

Now, based on the evidence that the universe had a beginning, who uses more reason and logic? The atheist, who says, like Quentin Smith, “The universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.?” Or, the theist, who says “Everything that comes into existence needs a cause.” What’s more rational to believe? The atheist might argue for “multi-verses” which is completely unwarranted and has no evidence whatsoever. And before you say there is no evidence for God, remember i just gave you the evidence from cosmology.

Another argument for God’s existence is the Argument from Morality.

1.)If objective moral values exist, then God exists.
2.) Objective moral values do exist.
____________________________________
3.) Therefore, God exists.

This is a basic principle of logic called modus ponens. Let’s look at premises (1) and (2).

If objective moral values do, in fact, exist, then it inexplicably follows that God also exists. For without God, there would be no standard for objective moral values (i.e., an objective standard for right and wrong acttions, an objective standard for “oughts” and “ought nots.” Now, you may say that objective moral values DO NOT, in fact, exist. And if you believe that they do not exist then you must believe that beating a defenseless child is not objectively wrong. It may be wrong for you, but for a drunk father it’s okay, right? Or we can look at Nazi Germany. If the Nazi’s carried out their plans and succeeded in either killing or brainwashing every person on earth to believe that what they did was the right thing to do, would it, in fact, have been the right thing to do? So, if you will agree that you shouldn’t rape a child under any circumstances then you agree that objective moral values do exist. And if you agree that objective moral values exist, then logically and inescapably, you must concede that God exists.

The reason God must exist in the event that objective moral values exist is that outside of a Moral Lawgiver, there would be no objective morality. If you look at morality from a naturalistic perspective then it is completely subjective (in fact, morality would be equivalent to your taste in music). There would be no overriding factor, given naturalism, which would cause things to be objectively right or objectively wrong. You saying murder and rape is not good would be like me saying guacamole is not good.

So, either the atheist must reject objective morality, or come up with a naturalistic explanation. And the atheist saying sociobiologists can trace social ethics to different groups of people and show how certain moral values change among different people at different times doesn’t change the fact of objective moral values existing. That would be what is called the genetic fallacy.

We could also talk about the extreme improbablity of life spontaneously coming from non-life. It is completely ridiculous to think that a bunch of non-living chemicals could turn into living cells without Intelligent intervention. You must remember that even the brightest scientists today can’t create life from non-life (which should show that if INTELLIGENT scientists can’t do it, non-intelligent mutations can’t do it either). And then we also have the Cambrian explosion which completely ruins Darwinian evolution. We have fully formed life forms with advanced physial traits coming into the fossil record fully formed without any trace of gradual change. And also the impossibility of conscousness coming from non-conscousness.

So, again, what’s more rational? Atheism or theism?

And then we could look at rationality itself. There is no justification for rationality in an atheistic worldview. Even Darwin pointed this out. He said he had no more right in thinking his beliefs were justified than thinking the beliefs of an ape are justified. Evolution can’t account for true beliefs. Evolution is based on survival, not truth. Really think hard about this. What makes it possible to believe that what you believe is true given naturalism? Given theism, it’s extremely easy to believe that we have true knowledge because we were created by a rational being and we are capable of being rational. Why would a human be any more rational than an ape on the naturalistic worldview?

So, what’s more rational? Atheism, or theism?

We could also look at the teleological argument (the fine-tuning of the universe). How is it that the universe randomly popped into being out of nothing with the EXACT necessary quantitative conditions to produce life? The Atheist might say “chance,” which isn’t even an actual thing. “Chance” doesn’t do anything, it’s just a word describing probabilities, it doesn’t have capabilites of manipulating or altering any sort of conditions. The atheist, actually, relies very heavily on chance and faith. Faith is something everybody has, like it or not. You don’t know with 100 percent certainty that there was a yesterday. You don’t know with 100 percent certainty that a bridge that you’re about to cross over will hold your car. You don’t know with 100 percent certainty that you’ll live another day, and yet you have faith you will, and so you plan ahead.

In the Bible, faith is not blind. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE for things not seen.” We have much evidence for believing in God. That’s why only about 5% of the entire worlds population are atheists. Even in America, the percentage is no higher than 11%. So to say that theism is irrational is just ridiculous. I would say atheism is irrational, and justifiably so.

The problem with worldviews is that you can find whatever you WANT to find. You can look at the Big Bang and say, “it just happened” or you can look at the origin of life and say “it just happened, we’ll figure it out someday (sounds like “naturalism of the gaps”), and you can look at the fine-tuning of the universe and say it just happened. Well, try justifying your beliefs against a theist who understands what they believe and how the world around them works. Ranting and raving about how much you hate religion and God isn’t proof that either of them are false or non-existent. Philosophically, in this day of scientific breakthroughs, it is just completely illogical to be an atheist.

I particularly baulked at the use of the “word” unchristian.

And you’re right, no one will pay attention to theists until they get a grasp of language (and logic, rational debate, the need for evidence etc.).

*ahem* What you meant to say was “Have you ever SPOKEN the name of our Lord in vain?” Have spoken, was the verb conjugation you meant to write.

Look, dude, believe, don’t believe, I don’t really give a shit, but nobody will take you seriously if you write this sloppily and carelessly.

Pay attention to how you say what you say, or nobody will pay attention the anything you say.