There is no evidence supporting the existence of the biblical god.

I obviously see mistakes made in my original assertion that, with hindsight, I wish I would has thought out beforehand. That being said, these are my mistakes to deal with and I appreciate the trial by fire. So lets see what I can salvage because I not only see a defensible position but also still having the correct position. Cosmological Argument Rebuttal of Aristotle's Prime Mover has been well established. To postulate that everything must have a cause and then conclude with something that does not have a cause(infinite) is illogical. Why cant an infinite chain of natural events be the prime mover? Your proposal of a god being the prime mover violates Occam's razor in that it goes on ad infinitum. Your god requires another god to create him, and that one requires another, since nothing can be created ex nihilo. b. Kalems argument is refuted by quantum fluctuation. The temporary appearance of particles of energy out of nothing. . http://universe-review.ca... Scientific Evidence I created a painting the other day that is finite and created, yet I am not. You have also failed, by your own prerequisite to prove that the universe is created thus needing an infinite creator. 1. If god exists then he must be perfect 2. If god exists then he must be the creator of the universe 3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect. 4. The universe is not perfect 5. Therefore it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe. 6. Hence god does not exist Regarding the biblical god 1. if god exists then his attributes are consistent with the existence of evil 2. The attributes of the biblical god are not consistent with the existence of evil 3. Therefore the biblical god does not and cannot exist. Finally 1. Hypothesize a god who plays a role in the universe 2. Assume this god has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence 3. Look for this evidence with an open mind 4. If you find such evidence then conclude that god MAY exist. 5. If you do not then conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this god does not exist. Ontological Evidence To quote David Hume: . .. there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable. The best rebuttal, however is: "In his development of the ontological argument, Leibniz attempted to demonstrate the coherence of a supremely perfect being. C. D. Broad countered that if two characteristics necessary for God's perfection are incompatible with a third, the notion of a supremely perfect being becomes incoherent. The ontological argument assumes the definition of God purported by classical theism: that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. Kenneth Einar Himma claimed that omniscience and omnipotence may be incompatible: if God is omnipotent, then he should be able to create a being with free will; if he is omniscient, then he should know exactly what such a being will do (thus rendering them without free will). This analysis would render the ontological argument incoherent, as the characteristics required of a maximally great being cannot coexist in one being, thus such a being could not exist" . http://en.wikipedia.org... Evidence from Morality Is there any single moral construct that isnt debated ir disputed? I am at a loss to think of any. If morality was universal then I would think there would be at least something we would agree on. Personal testimony Using this as evidence means that we had evidence of a flat Earth a few hundred years ago. We have evidence for bigfoot and not to mention the millions of young children that offer evidence for Santa each and every year. Argumentum ad Populum. Other The 2nd law of theromodynamics applies to a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from the sun it is not closed and this law does not apply. Conclusion As my first debate on this site I have definitely learned to better prepare my initial claim. I went into this half heartedly and I wish to thank Con once again for the lesson. My allowing Con to define the terms was my downfall. I do believe that I have countered all of cons "evidence" to the best of my ability but having "evidence" defined by Con has definitely handicapped me. Especially regarding personal testimony. Anyone who claims anything about anything automatically can qualify as evidence with those definitions so I felt handicapped and forsee defeat at my own hand.