God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

My opponent asserts that since my argument rests on a few assumptions, it is somehow more invalid than committing a "God of the Gaps" fallacy. My opponent, sharing the lack of knowledge of the universe that all of humanity has, places a god or a deity in what's left of our ignorance in science. There is simply no reason to believe in a creator, and even if his arguments an/or rebuttals held water, they would be largely non-sequiturs for a deity or an intelligent supernatural force of any sort. If we were to know there is a deity, we would need to know much more about the universe than we do now. Science will readily admit its ignorance on this subject. However, it will not place a deity in the universe without at the very least evidence one would be needed. A god can be placed in any gap in science and has. The beginning of the universe and the universe itself should be no exception to this fallacy of appealing to ignorance. He also asserts that I argue from ignorance. Here is a quote taken from that same website he provided a link to. "There are a few types of reasoning which resemble the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, and need to be distinguished from it: 1.Sometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false. For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence, which means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of guilt then the jury must conclude that the defendant is not guilty. Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that someone claims that the president was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that the president visited another planet, therefore he probably didn't do so. 2.We sometimes have meta-knowledge""that is, knowledge about knowledge""which can justify inferring a conclusion based upon a lack of evidence. For instance, schedules""such as those for buses, trains, and airplanes""list times and locations of arrivals and departures. Such schedules usually do not attempt to list the times and locations when vehicles do not arrive or depart, since this would be highly inefficient. Instead, there is an implicit, understood assumption that such a schedule is complete, that all available vehicle departures and arrivals have been listed. Thus, we can reason using the following sort of enthymeme: There is no departure/arrival listed in the schedule for location L at time T. Suppressed Premiss: All departures and arrivals are listed in the schedule. Therefore, there is no departure/arrival for location L at time T. This kind of completeness of information assumption is often called the "closed world assumption". When it is reasonable to accept this assumption""as with plane or bus schedules""it is not a fallacy of appeal to ignorance to reason this way. 3.Another type of reasoning is called "auto-epistemic" ("self-knowing") because it involves reasoning from premisses about what one actually knows and what one would know if something were true. The form of such reasoning is: If p were true, then I would know that p. I don't know that p. Therefore, p is false. For instance, one might reason: If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now. I don't know that I'm adopted. Therefore, I wasn't adopted. Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is: If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now. We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness. Therefore, there is no such animal. As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance." My "argument from ignorance" rests heavily on the first premise mentioned in that quote. To follow up, the "Carl Sagan Standard" states that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So unless my opponent produces evidence of deity or indirect evidence one would be needed, and they held water, my arguments stand. I give the floor to Wylted and wish him good luck.