To maintain your belief in atheism, you would have to believe nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness and non-reason produces reason. How can you still have enough faith to believe this? Therefore, the most logical and reasonable thing you could do is take a step of faith not against the evidence but towards the direction the evidence is pointing which is a logical thing we do every day in various ways and put your faith in Jesus Christ.

Debate with William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel, Jim Dennison (Sponsored by The Christian Book Expo and Christianity Today),

http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Other_clips/CT-Expo-Panel/
or
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=41178da2dab2e1e83d93

William Lane Craig makes 7 points...

The Biblical God Exists Rather than Nothing or Something Always Existing Because:

1) Whatever exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence that explanation is best explained to be God. The universe, obviously, exists. From that it follows, if the universe has an explanation of its existence then God exists.

2) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Philosophical and scientific evidence shows the universe began to exist. What follows is a transcendent cause beyond the universe of space and time which brought the universe into being form nothing.

3) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design. It's improbable and implausible that it is due to necessity or sheer chance from which it follows it must be due to design.

4) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. These values and duties are obligatory and binding independently of whether anybody believes them or not. Objective moral values and duties do exist. In our moral experience we do apprehend such values. From which it follows necessarily and logically God does exist.

5) The ontological argument (essential properties of a being) says if it is even possible God exist then God exists. God is a maximally great being. There can be nothing greater than God. A maximally great being would be omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect in every possible world. If it is possible there is a being like that, it follows there is a world for which a maximally great being exists. If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, he exists for all possible worlds, including our actual world or universe. Therefore, it reasonable to believe that God exists. So, if it is even possible God exists, then He must exist. An atheist would have to not only deny God exists but would have to disprove that it is even possible for God to exist. The atheist utterly fails in this attempt.

6) Jesus radical personal claim and resurrection from the dead is the revelation of the Creator God of the universe that is apprehended through the arguments of natural theology that the best explanation for the facts of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances and the origin of the disciples belief in Jesus' resurrection, is that God raised Jesus from the dead because Jesus is God. It therefore follows that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.

7) God can be known immediately through personal experience. Philosophers call this properly basic beliefs. They are not based on deeper esoteric inferences or hidden secret knowledge but are foundational to a person's system of basic beliefs. These are not arbitrary, but grounded in daily experience and that's what makes them properly basic. A person who knows God, who has a personal relationship with Him, the belief that God exists is a properly basic belief grounded in his experience of God; and therefore, it is both rational and justified to believe God exists in a properly basic way.

An atheist will accept nothing as proof for God's existence and parlor tricks, of course, don't count. But a Christian will accept nothing as proof for God's non-existence because you can't prove something happens all by itself in nature or disprove the exponential progression of conscience. So what then? It all hinges on the resurrection. If no naturalistic explanation fits the data for the resurrection claim, then Jesus is God. A Christian will accept Jesus is not God if a naturalistic explanation can be put forward that fits the data, but an atheist will not accept the proof Jesus is God if they can't find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data accepted by skeptical scholars. But Hitchens said the golden rule is to treat others as he would like to be treated, yet he has a double standard. So here is an example of Hitches breaking his own moral values showing that objective moral values don't exist in atheism, since objective moral values don't exist without God.

An atheists has a double standard because he accuses the system of God, but the system obviously nonetheless exists anyway, so he is really accusing atheism. Why is an atheist allowed to accuse God for the system but not atheism for the events of nature that take place anyway? Makes no sense. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).