Islam misunderstood

Regarding "The Evolver": My opponent concedes that this is mere assumption and I must say that assumption does not cut it when debating god. With this in mind the first "piece of evidence" falls. Regarding probability: My opponent is making the classic probability fallacy. One cannot claim the probability of something if we don't know how many ways said thing could come about. For example, we don't know how many ways life could come about or if there are different forms of life (that are not carbon based). For this reason this entire probability argument falls. One cannot make the prediction of probability without actually knowing how rare something is! Now regarding evidence. What you have done is provided verses from an ancient book to prove that the ancient book is true. That is called circular logic and can be used by anyone making an insane religious claim. I have provided logical arguments against your god and scientific evidence against your god and I wait to see how you respond. If I can show, even in one way that your god is not needed/has logical inconsistencies I win. //It is important for us to "...believe in the unseen..." because faith is the first pillar of Islam "La ilaha illallah", the shahada, a declaration of faith.// That is not evidence by your own definition. Also, believing the unseen (or unproven) leaves room to believe anything. If this is the case you should believe in farries and unicorns and dragons and genies. This is not an argument. 1: In none of your first paragraphs do you mention Muhammed this I extend. About Genesis, fair enough. I have refuted the passage enough. 2: //The Quran was brought down in Arabic similarly to how the Torah was brought down in Hebrew// But you said it was inspired, not brought down. Also, you have provided no evidence to support this. //As for the expansion of the Universe I don't fully understand the repulsive cosmological constant but from what I understand it's an unknown force, if that's the case than it can be related to God.// Well it's not entirely unknown at all. It is linked to dark energy and dark flow. But just because something is unknown you link it to god? That is terrible (for you that is) because when one does that their god gets smaller and smaller as we learn more. If you do this your god is contingent on out understanding and as our knowledge increases your god get's squeezed smaller and smaller until one can truly say that "God is dead". (also you gave no evidence to support your claim here, just speculation) 3: // now if you look back far enough to the very moment of the big bang you would see that everything that will eventually shape our universe came from one point.// This is so scientifically inaccurate. Right after the big bang there were no atoms and even when the first ones formed there was only hydrogen, none of the major elements that make up earth were there. So this claim is false. //If logic forces you to believe that something must come from something// But that is not what I believe and that is not what is true. Matter came from nothing as shown in my last argument. Since this is the case and I do not comply to the aforementioned statement I can ignore the rest. 4: Fair enough. You have shown that the Quran could not have been forged but that still doesn't compete with my rebuttals of the verses. Arg 1: Well my opponent didn't really answer this but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say this has been disproven. Arg2: //making nothing equal to him.// So he cannot make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Then he is not omnipotent. Regarding the next part in this argument, it does not matter if you think nothing can be bigger, omnipotence means you are all powerful thus he could do one or the other. Please flow this across. Arg 3: //God is completely different from us he is perfect and we are not. God doesn't need to learn in order to know what learning is like, he invented it. God has knowledge of what's in our minds but he doesn't have to think like us in order to have it, he invented us.// This is not a refutation of the argument, just saying god is not like us. Extend. //Universe from nothing, what are the odds?// Well, you ignored my evidence, and didn't argue against it except by asking "what are the odds" thus I flow this across beautifully. Conclusion: My opponent has only refuted 1 of my 3 logical arguments that show his god is not real thus I extend the other 2. Also, my opponent has not refuted the claim that a universe can come from nothing which I have proven thus I extend that. That shows that there is no need for god at all! Now regarding his claims: Verse one was conceded as being an assumption thus it holds no water. I have also shown that it is false. Verse two has been shown to be scientifically innacurate and was also claimed that "it [the cosmological constant] can be related to God." The problem with this is that there is no evidence to support it. This argument falls. I have disproven all my opponent's claims whist leaving mine unscratched thus I urge you to vote Con!