is the belief in a God/Creator more logical than the belief of scientific theory

"my argument is not to prove Gods existence as this is impossible to 'prove'" PRO suggests that God is impossible to prove, but should still be considered more logical a choice than a scientific theory with a great deal of supporting evidence. This statement at it's most basic asserts that we should consider a god belief more reasonable than a scientific theory even if neither theory has any evidence. This statement reflects case after case of special pleading that can be seen throughout my opponents argument. "to believe something began is logical, its common sense, a theory that space, matter, atoms or anything else created themselves from nothing is surely more unrealistic than the belief that something created them" This is a nonsensical claim, and no quotes or citations of any theory is given to support this supposed stance. By PRO's logic, a god would be unrealistic, since nothing created the god in question. Why would one theory be held to this bar but not the other? Another case of special pleading. "The laws of logic show materialism is false by revealing that non-physical causes exist and laws of logic point to a rationality beyond the universe." No examples or citations given to support this claim. "If there was not, then the universe is completely random and life has no purpose." The universe is not random, understanding the Big Bang and it's production of expected outcomes could lead one to believe that life was an inevitability in our universe. "Purpose" is a subjective human concept we assign to things to give them value. If I were in a rainstorm and discovered a cave, than it's "purpose" is to keep me dry and warm. However when I leave, this is no longer it's purpose. This word has no meaning outside of subjective human consideration and cannot apply to the universe in such a fashion. Even if it were true that the universe is both random and meaningless - one's desire for it to have intention and meaning do not support how it may have come into existence. "If there was a God, does this God still exist and if so does this existence affect our lives although this does not directly apply to the question being debated. So because there now is existence, then something has always existed." This is outstandingly circular, and offers no support to the claim that a god is more logical than a scientific theory. "Either God always existed or matter has always existed. If there was no God, then matter has always existed." A bit of a false dichotomy, as we don't know this to be the case. Even assuming this is true, it does not falsify the Big Bang theory, and doesn't potentially violate any rationality, especially since we know so little about existence before the universe existed. "it is not possible for something to start moving without being affected by something else" The Big Bang does not violate this concept, a god theory does. "The fact that it appears that there seems to be substantially more matter than antimatter" Physical laws may favor matter over anti-matter, processes that annihilate one but not the other: http://www.physics.org... "Radioactive substances are in a state of constant disintegration, thus if they would have been disintegrating forever, there would be no radioactive matter left." Radioactive substances are formed in the crucible of stars and don't last forever. "This happens to be consistent with what the Bible teaches (Isaiah 9:7)." "Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David"s throne and over his kingdom" Israel is big, but it's no universe. (And there hasn't been much peace in the past couple thousand years) "The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life." Abiogenesis is not biogenesis. Asexual - not sexual Apolitical - not politic Asymptomatic - not symptomatic Abiogenesis - not biogenesis "The non-God theory of human-life would have us believe that protein-like substances became alive, somehow figured that it had to eat, somehow knew what to eat, figured out how to eat it, figured out how to digest what was eaten, then figured out how to reproduce so that it would not die out." A strawman. If you have any questions about evolution, visit: http://www.talkorigins.org... This website has a counter-argument for every "argument" ever given. "Single-celled creatures are too complicated to have simply came together by random chance in order to live." They didn't come together by chance, this argument is called "irreducible complexity" and has been debunked: http://wiki.ironchariots.org... "but will state that the fossil records do not support the evolutionary concept" Fossilization is a rare event, and discovering a fossil is rare as well. Even with this being the case we constantly find transitional fossils that support evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org... "why havn't all the monkeys evolved into humans" We didn't come from monkeys: http://www.pbs.org... Evolution is not a singular, linear ladder. You don't "level up" to the next species and go on your merry way. If white Americans and Australians are both descended from Europeans, how come there are still Europeans? If dogs are domesticated wolves, how come there are still wolves? If rock and roll came from the blues, how come there is still the blues? If Protestants came from Catholics, how come there are still Catholics? If Christians came from Jews, how come there are still Jews? PRO's entire argument is working under the "god of the gaps" concept. PRO has copied and pasted the vast majority of his argument from another website, has failed to counter ANY of my arguments, and has steered the debate off track with fallacies and unrelated topics. It would appear my opponent simply wishes to preach, and has no interest in a valid debate or offering any material for consideration. Thanks for reading, on to round 4.