Because there are Nonbelievers, God does not exist.

My opponent states the following: "First of all... Whether or not my argument against the Christian god is relevant to the other two Abrahamic religions is of no importance." I argue that the concept of the Christian God, and all powerful creator God, is not a Christian monopoly. The argument of God's existence cannot be confined to the "Christian" belief of God because the existence of God in either argument is not dependent on Christianity being correct in their belief. It is not the existence of God in Christian belief that my opponent questions, rather the attributes of this God. My opponent implies that he does not believe Christian Theology to be grounded in truth, yet he insists that I argue from that point of view. This is contradictory in that my opponent is asserting as primal authority that which he seeks to deny- Christian theology. I argue that the premise- the existence of non-believers proves the non-existence of God- is nonsensical. My opponent relies on specific attributes as the fundamentals of this argument- attributes I have not claimed for this God- based on Christianity, yet ignores the Christian belief that God is invisible (Colossians 1:15; I Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:27). If God is invisible to the human eye, it would be reasonable to expect some to not believe in his existence. "I never stated that this would be an argument against the conceptions of god in every other religion, just the one in Christianity." -Historical, doctrinal, and scriptural facts impose on this debate a realm far wider than the narrow passage in the book of time that is Christianity. Without God there would be no Christianity, not the other way around. We are debating the existence of God, not the veracity of the fundamentals of Christianity. "I does not matter whether or not my opponent and I are believers. This verse is relevant because it shows clearly what the Christian God desires; for all of mankind to be saved, and this would have been a crucial point I will address in my argument." -If you would explain this point then maybe you would have a point to argue, but simply stating the point and regurgitating written arguments from non-belief does not make your argument. You are assuming the readers of this debate will automatically go back and research a point you never attempted to make, I never asserted, and I proved to be irrelevant given the arguments that ARE presented surrounding this passage... arguments which happen to be mine since you have made no argument in which this passage was relevant. You assume I will assert the beliefs made in Timothy, and you assume you will argue against a premise I never made, rather you assumed in your own premise- that a perfectly loving God would make himself known to all in the manner which you demand. If you had made that point I could argue against it, but you never made that point. You simply assumed it to be made by your assertion. "It basically maintains that because reasonable doubters exist, then God must not exist if he were to carry the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence for this would be a contradiction." -You never made points explaining why an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God cannot exist if reasonable disbelief (you originally said disbelief, not doubt) exists. You expect me, again, to argue against a point that was never made. I don't believe these attributes would be reason for the absence of reasonable non-belief. "Science is not perfect." -Our understanding of science is imperfect, but science itself is perfect. It is pretty much irrelevant to my argument other than the fact that the examples I gave cannot be reasonably disbelieved given today's common knowledge, ie. the Earth revolves around the Sun. This, at one point, was fervently denied and condemned as heresy, as I have already stated. If you are to argue that there is a reasonable argument against the Earth revolving around the Sun, that would be an interesting debate. I have already had a "flat Earth" debate... "The reason why it was not known back then was because science was in its infancy." -It is pretty audacious and arrogant to claim science was in it's infancy. Technology may have been in it's infancy, but many of today's scientific advances are based on the discoveries of the scientific revolution. I did not claim it was not known that the Earth revolved around the Sun, rather that it was condemned as heresy. This happened to Galileo Galilei, who based his theories and his findings on those of Copernicus, who was born one hundred years prior to Galileo. Galileo did not "invent" this science, rather he sought to prove it. "Science always progresses, and has a built-in-mechanism to correct its theories, laws, etc." -Theories and Hypotheses are not laws. Laws of science may be altered over time as written and understood by humans, but these laws never change in the universe. These laws do not change in nature. If we do not know them, or we misunderstand them, it is only because we are ignorant, not because science is not perfect. In my last argument I provided constants which cannot be reasonably challenged given our current level of knowledge. You are not challenging these constants, rather you are attacking the concept of perfect science without even giving an example in which science has been proven imperfect. Put it this way- if it was ever discovered that the calculation for the speed it takes a photon to travel a meter was incorrect, it would be the meter that would be recalculated, not the amount of time it took to travel. The law of the speed of light remains constant.(note: It is currently being argued by some scientists that the speed of light may vary over time, even in a vacuum. It is important to note, however, that the scientists who theorize this also theorize that if this were true- just as the commonly believed constant of c has proven countless other laws, a varying speed of light would prove more theories. These are just theories right now.) "The Christian god is an entity, with specific attributes and desires to it; science is merely the effort to discover and understand the physical world." -You claim the Christian God is an entity with specific attributes, yet you claim you don't believe this statement. I don't believe this statement is based on a known truth of the reality of God. I believe it is simple for humans to apply human attributes to God, but I don't believe we can possibly fathom godly "emotions" if a perfect God would have any similar to those of humans. I assert that the possibility that what we consider the emotion "love", in divine terms "love" would imply perfect harmony with all creation. The only way to maintain perfect harmony with all creation is through established laws, ie. the laws of science, laws of nature, etc., and a "perfectly loving" God would adhere to these laws perfectly as their author, judge, and sole perfect interpreter. "Of course I do not believe God is all-loving, for the mere reason that I do not believe he exists." -Yet, for this statement to make any sense at all he would have to... You are citing from people like Schellenberg, and claiming these are "Christian" claims. There are hundreds of Theological colleges throughout the United States and thousands throughout the world, I am sure they all don't teach the same things. I am sure they even teach Atheism as a logical belief. The problem is you are not making the fundamental point Schellenberg ATTEMPTS to make in implying that a "perfectly loving" God would want all to be saved, and therefore he would personally reveal himself to everyone. I have already pointed out several problems with this argument, and did so again with my proposals that "perfect love" would mean "perfect harmony with nature", and therefore adherence to a strict set of fair laws. If you want to discuss salvation, that is another debate.