Science cannot disprove God, nor does it even come close to offering anything on the matter.

Thank you for accepting, I look forward to this debate also, and I hope we can be as precise as possible and understand each others points. It would be special to, if we could give each other serious food for thought on our own ideas. Firstly I will attempt to clear up some of the definitions you pointed out. Miracle: in this case I'm referring to an event. The 'big bang' and the point at which the laws of the universe began is the 'miracle' event I'm talking about. I say 'miracle' because in the atheist model of reality, this event is essentially a miracle, in that it was without explanation and causation. Don't worry too much about this one, for want of a better word I would change it. 'Uber-theorising': This word I adapted myself, but it essentially means: making a big theory that encompasses more than the evidence shows. So for instance, on a small scale: seeing a few rude polish people might lead to somebody assuming polish people are mostly rude. Or learning world history might give somebody the impression they understand how humans got where we are, when other factors such as our biological and psychological aspects might change that persons opinion entirely on why we are the way we are. Have I explained that well enough? Il try one more: All cultures, have an explanation for the entirety or reality. Whether they are a tribe in the amazon or the royal society, they all 'know' what reality is, based on their knowledge however limited that may be. Theory: In this context, a belief or idea about something. Not the scientific definition that means it has to be currently accepted by our scientific society. God: A will that to some degree comprehended the origins of us, or maybe even began reality itself. This is not a theological debate surrounding religious texts and dogma. Though I don't think if there was a creator, it would have absolutely nothing to do with 'religion'. Your question about life-yes I'm referring to the entire cosmos. I hope that helps. Please say otherwise. My arguments, and supporting points. Argument 1. Science cannot disprove god. Science is the study of the make-up of the creation, and how the mechanics of it work. It will never be able to claim anything beyond the reality in which it exists. One might say there is nothing beyond the reality, but even that is a guess. Science is concerned with reality and has always been, its supposed to differ from religion in the fact that it was concerned with the natural world and not the purpose of reality. Science and religion are different but as institutions they step on each others toes; religion makes claims about reality, and science makes claims about god. Neither are correct to do so in my opinion, for how can how can one understand god enough to practically apply it? And how can a humble mammal who has traveled 1% into its home rock, not even explored the oceans depths, not traveled further than the moon, and is hundreds of light years away from anything, able to make claims on the nature of reality? In my opinion, the answer is that we cannot rationalise our origin, because even if we could explain how the matter of the universe came to be, we could never explain Our logic falls short and is not useable at this level, just like our logic has to be totally re-learned when we study the world at an atomic level. I would like to hear from you, if I may say, what kind of knowledge might disprove god. I know if you cannot provide anything it doesn't disprove your case, I'm just curious as to if you have any ideas. 2nd argument. Life itself doesn't necessarily suggest there is not a god. I would like to rephrase this but I'm sure my opponent won't object: The cosmos itself suggests that there might be a 'God' in the broad sense. So this argument is a matter of opinion, and will have to be voted on by personal choice rather than an absolute definitive argument. We have to approach the topic of the nature of reality with humility, and with as little pre-assumptions as possible. We have to look at what we know for sure, I think, as a starting point, for what else can we start with? So: we exist. So do other versions of us (other life). There is the possibility of more of us (life) elsewhere, but other than that, it seems, its just rocks and stars and other 'mundane' substances. So life seems to be the most diverse and unique thing in existence. What is life? Well all we know is that we have love, consciousness and an awakened, aware state that can consider the cosmos. We have morality and happiness, is it likely such a wonderful thing could be meaningless and a fluke? Indeed, the idea of a fluke is one created in reality, and is in fact not a true word-for there is no such thing as a 'fluke':even the roll of a dice could be predicted by science. A so called fluke, can only exists within a medium: that it either manipulates, or is manipulated by. There needs to be something that is actually the source of the fluke. The 'fluke' argument is, in my opinion, impossible, not just improbable. So, if a fluke is impossible, then the question becomes even harder. What was there before the universe and how, or why, did it come into existence? All the laws that govern the universe right down the electrons, what are they for? Well all we know is that they have produced life and us, me and you, and our ability and desire to question that reality. This, for me, is like a massive 'clue' in solving the puzzle of what reality truly is. That 'clue', for me, is suggestible towards some 'divinity' that is utterly unknowable that perhaps is what all cultures reference as 'religion'. The 'presence' or whatever it is, has been felt by ever culture known to man. In a nutshell: I could see the universe, without life, as perhaps being a sort of clever chance. But with life and us, it seems too miraculous to be chance. What are the chances, that the laws of the universe, and mass created in the universe, would be able to come together and create something with the ability to question the nature and discover the origins of the thing itself? I know that is whats actually happened, and therefore its near impossible to imagine the odds of it not hapening, but would they not be high? It's hard to think about isn't it. That was hard. This is a very difficult argument to boil down to short points and overarching themes. I hope you can understand most of what I'v said, its very difficult to describe my thoughts on the matter, even if I was a better writer. Thank you for reading, I look forward to your arguments, (and response if you choose). -