God does not exist.

Burden of ProofWhile, as instigator and skeptic, the burden of proof is slanted toward me, there is also the consideration that the issue at hand is the validity of an ancient book of fairy tails, or the 'Benevolent King' described therein. If I were to have started the debate about the existence of Iluvatar, from Tolkien's various works, and made the opening statement that Iluvatar was not real, though I were the instigator and skeptic, it would somewhat be under the responsibility of the proponent to prove me wrong, since all the evidence is to the contrary. There may be several volumes of mystical literature describing or mentioning Iluvatar, but historical evidence, as well as lack of external evidence, would lead one to the logical conclusion that Iluvatar is a work of fiction. I therefore posit that the burden of proof is, if not equally balanced, certainly not, in the majority, on me.Regarding My Opponent's First RebuttalYou are correct, I am saying that everything we know today came about in a cause of chance, non-intelligent and purposeless. I am unfamiliar with Chandra Wickramasinghe, however, I can easily answer the point you raise about Sir Fred Hoyle. I am a distant cousin of Sir Fred, and am therefore knowledgeable, at least in small, of his theories and work. While he was indeed a great astronomer and mathematician, he was not without flaw. His theory for the origin of the elements may have been correct, but he also believed that universe is stagnant, and rejected the notion of the 'Big Bang,' having, in fact, coined the term 'Big Bang Theory,' in an attempt to ridicule it. I would call the calculations performed by Hoyle, therefore, to be highly biased toward disproving the theory rival to his own.Regarding My Opponent's First ContentionI will not argue the logic of your first logic clause. However, I will do so in the case of the second. That the cause of the universe must be timeless or eternal is an assumption, though not an unreasonable one. However, that all timeless causes must be personal is absurd. On what scientific principles might you be basing your supposition that all timeless causes must be personal? Additionally, that God is the only explanation that fits both of these is also inaccurate. There are religions that list similar figures all over the world. I would think it folly to assume that the God of Judeo-Christian religion holds a monopoly over conceptualized eternal and personal ultimate rulers.I will contend that my opponent dismisses out of hand that the universe could exist without a creator by the idea that without a creator, there could have been no alternate cause for its existence. Current scientific theory, namely 'M-Theory,' posits that the universe did not simply spontaneously spring into existence from nothing, but that a series of objects whose existence was unknown until recently, quantum microsingularities. To imagine them, imagine a series of highly small, much smaller than matter, even particles, generally speaking, bubbles, forming a medium or field like soap bubbles in a sink. It has been speculated that if enough space (space as in room, not space as in the medium in which things that are not made of matter, dark matter, antimatter, etc. exist) were to arise within this bubbling medium of microsingularities, they would compete for the space, and the first to reach a critical size would enter a phase of hyperinflation, initiating a 'Big Bang,' forming a new universe. The resulting energy from the hyperinflation would be sufficient to form the particles populating the universe. All of these universes would, theoretically, of course, exist within a 'multiverse,' a vast, potentially infinite expanse of parallel universes. Due to lack of information, I cannot, and I do not know that any of science's great champions can, explain anything further about the multiverse, or nature of existence, or its origins, in a scientific, information-based manner, as anything more than distant conjecture.Regarding your question of a giant asteroid, larger than our universe, or a black hole acting as a phage, that will require a basic underlying knowledge of physics. If we were to assume that the laws of physics outside our universe are the same as those within, the an asteroid existing outside the universe could not become larger than our universe and remain an asteroid, unless it were made of some stable, highly strong metal or fibrous element, able to maintain highly porous structural integrity, as its own tremendous mass would cause it to become a gigantic, highly dense star, which would be short lived, being composed of metals, and then collapse into a colossal black hole. However, theoretically, the space between universes is a void, empty except for the field of microsingularities. This is different from space, as space is a medium of subatomic particles, mainly bosons, such as photons, gluons, and the theoretical gravitons, tachyons, and chronotons. Therefore, without such things to produce gravity, or any forces, no asteroid would be able to form. As for the black hole suggestion, without gravitons, the void around the universe would not be able to form such a pinch in space-time, therefore nullifying such a concept. A black hole consuming our galaxy, on the other hand, is, while possible, in the case of a rogue black hole, however, unlikely. Black holes are not, as many people mistakenly believe, cosmic phages, destroying everything near them. Most galaxies contain black holes at their centers, and contain many black holes, though less massive than the central ones (galactic cores, usually quasars, are similar to black holes, and may be orbited by a number of black holes). While I acknowledge the remote possibilities of the occurrences you have suggested, I note that they are extremely unlikely.That the universe is expanding outward from a central point is not subject to debate, being highly verified. However, that prior to the universe, there must be infinity, is a curious statement, I would say. After all, that would plot the originating instant of the universe as zero on a timeline. However, since we are speaking theoretically, it may be said that, outside the universe, if there are no particles, there are no chronotons, as they are particles, and therefore no time (chronotons being the bosons responsible for time). Your supposed disproof of infinity is irrelevant. Infinity is, of course, only a concept, but one of infinite proportions. When you are dealing with numbers that do not end, and are so unimaginably larger than any number you can begin to fathom, adding two of such numbers makes little mathematical difference. I suggest you study up on calculus before further pursuing concepts of infinity, whether to disprove or affirm them.I object to your final statement of primary contention: it is illogical to assume that, if science is unable to prove something, one must jump to the conclusion of influence by an omnipotent cosmic being.Regarding My Opponent's Second ContentionI would contest that the ability to make predictions is evidence of the supernatural. Jules Verne predicted the invention of the submarine. Does that make him a 'prophet'? That modern events can be interpreted as having been referenced by Biblical texts is most likely mere coincidence. People have been interpreting the Bible's prophecies to be coming true for the last 2000 years.While meaning no offense, I find your reference to the Dome of the Rock humorous, as the giant rock beneath the dome is considered sacred because the Prophet Muhammad supposedly rode a great, flaming, flying horse across it, leaving giant indentations. If so many people wish to idolize a giant rock, I will not stop them, but I perceive it with mirth.While the ability to predict the future has been one coveted for centuries, even millennia, I contest its validity as evidence of the supernatural. (Expanded upon in next argument.)