Resolved: The Christian God Most Likely Doesn't Exist

C1: My opp says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. first, saying there is no extraordinary evidence of God requires extraordinary evidence that there is no God. My opp's analogy about unicorns is silly. People have reported seeing Unicorns which were later proven to be another specie altogether. There have been also numerous people who have claimed to see God and/or Angels and/or Jesus. None of thost reports have been aboslutly proven to be false. Another thing that I believe ties in to my previous point is my own personal spiritual journey. When I was younger, I always felt God watching over me. I would look up to the sky and ALMOST see God and Jesus looking after me. When I used to go to church, I would feel His presence. I was also born with spina bifida and have had a few close calls. I have woken up during surgery. I have had an infection so bad I could've died. How can my opp argue personal experience without resorting to insults? There is also Noah's Ark sitting on Mt. Ararat. I would ask my opp to explain how that (a story in Genisis, the first book of the Bible) got there? How is it the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered? More to the point about Dead Sea Scrolls, how were they not proven to be false? The burden of proof is now on my opp. C2- The existance of the afterlife. Several people in both ancient and modern times have claimed to see Heaven and Hell. Most recently a sick child, who during a surgery, claims he went up to heaven and saw both heaven and hell. This account was written by his father in the book, Heaven Is For Real. This may not be extraordinary evidence, but there certainly is no extraordinary evidence disproving because as i have said, my opp would find it impossible to refute personal experience with out resorting to insults (hallucinations, etc) C3- Omnipotence is impossible. My opp brought about the Paradox of the Stone. The simple answer would be why would God do that? To prove his omnipotence? Why would he have to do that? Why SHOULD He have to do that? I would ask my opp to explain creation then. He would immediatly start with the big bang, which in itsself is flawed. The deeper you delve into it, the more questions come up and the harder it gets to prove it. Same with evolution. I recall an interview that Ben Stein conducted with Richard Dawkins. Stein asked Dawkins to explain how the universe was created. It started out just fine for Dawkins. Stein kept asking the same thing of Dawkins after Dawkins explained something, "What caused that?". Eventually Dawkins said something about bacteria on crystals. When Dawkins replied, he said "I don't know. We are currently working on that." Even Richard Dawkins, an arrogant atheist, could not come up with Extrodinary evidence. This is why we have to acknowledge at least the POSSIBILITY of an all powerful creator. SOMETHING has to be at work to create the universe. There IS an explaination for creation. There is no concrete extraordinary explaination for the big bang. The question of what caused A, B, C and X, Y, Z ALWAYS comes up and there is absolutly no way anyone can come up with a finite answer with out acknowledging a all powerful creator