Atheists are wrong. God is real

I'm going into this assuming by "God", you mean the deity of Christianity, seeing as "God" as a name, rather than a title, is usually only written as such when referring to that religion. If that is not the case, you will have to correct me in the following round. Please do confirm what form of deity you're arguing for. None the less, I will provide an argument that should deal with most interpretations of what deity is.First of all, let's be clear. Atheists, or any reasonable person really, are not asking for 100% undeniable proof that a god does or does not exist. What we're really looking for is serious evidence which strongly suggests one of the two positions. Neither position can give "proof" truly. So then, yes, Atheists desire evidence of God's existence. I feel this is a woefully unfilled evidential burden on the part of Theists and Deists and I hope my opponent is up for the task of giving a serious argument in favor of a God's existence. But that we shall have to see.Now, you want evidence for the non-existence of God, correct? Well, thankfully,we do have evidence of that kind. Theistic gods, especially the gods of the Abrahamic religions, are all verifiably falsified according to their representation in their respective holy books. The earth was not formed 6,000 years ago, woman is not the result of a blood clot taken from a man, and so on. As for a Deistic god, well, this is not a falsifiable argument. However, there are reasons to suspect it is not true, which I shall detail later.You bring up a curious statement in your argument. You mention that, if God exists, he would be a being of perfection, and perfection includes existence. Therefore, God exists. In other words, "If God exists, then he exists". Well...of course. It's a completely redundant point to make. Of course, if God exists, existence would naturally be a part of his character. But that's exactly what is being challenged here. Whether or not God exists. You cannot simply conclude that God exists from this ridiculous assertion alone. You also mention that man has a deep craving for forms of eternity. "Eternal happiness, eternal knowledge, and eternal Truth". For starters I disagree that is the case. I do not think it is so that man desires eternity in everything, and in fact, there are many that strongly assert they don't. The late Christopher Hitchens when it was known he would soon die from cancer was asked something to this effect. To which he replied "I wouldn't have it any other way". Some people are quite comfortable living a life they know is temporary. The knowledge of living, experiencing the world, and then leaving it to make room for the next generation brings them great solace.But that is not even quite relevant, as even if it were the case that man desired eternity as a deepest desire that does not suggest that we should turn to thoughts of the supernatural, or a realm beyond our own, as a means to achieve this desire. If anything it means we should look away from such childish, fanciful wish-thinking, and instead look to science and studies related to human biology and anti-aging. In the end, if we want to live eternally, I contend the result will come from science, not religion.Now, the remainder of your post seems to be describing something akin to a combination of the Teleological argument (design and order of the universe) and the Cosmological argument (the First Cause). This relates back to Deism, and why it seems to me to be a very weak argument. Let's go in reverse order, shall we? You contend that we explain nature by the law of cause and effect. While yes, as a general rule we operate under such a worldview, that doesn't mean such a notion will always work. And indeed, going back far enough, it has to break down by necessity. There can not always be another "cause". Eventually, you will come to the first cause, the beginning of time itself. Now, you propose God as this first cause. However, the universe does not necessitate a God in order to exist. Why could the universe itself not have existed forever? Or rather, matter. As far as we know, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. It's form can only simply be changed. This means that matter is truly "eternal". There's no need for a God to explain the origins of the universe. Matter has simply always existed. Matter formed in a particular arrangement, and this caused the Big Bang, which in turn led to the creation of our universe. So why do you assume God, if there is no need?Then there's the issue of the design of the universe, and of life itself. The problem with this mindset is that, as you make note of, God is a perfect being. And yet the design of the universe is far from perfect as we can imagine. In fact, it is very likely that this is the worst universe we could live in. There are many fundamental alterations to the universe one can think of that would make things better for us, yet there seem to be few if any that one could suggest which wouldn't render life for us an impossibility. The universe simply is not as magnificently designed as you seem to think it is. When we look into space, we see that the Andromeda Galaxy is headed on a direct collision course with our own Milky Way. Complete and utter annihilation is coming. Does that truly speak of divine, perfect planning? I think not.And what of our own biology, and it's flaws? What of the structure of the eye, for instance? With our crosswork of nerves blocking the light receptors at the very back? Or perhaps more obviously flawed, the nerves in our very neck. I shall let Professor Dawkins explain this. http://www.youtube.com...The human body simply isn't as grand a design as you make it out to be. Our biology, and the biology of other species, have some very glaring flaws which, if there was a grand, perfect designer, simply shouldn't be there. Nor is the structure of the universe all that grand either. Either there is no designer, or the designer is a very, very inept one. Far more likely is the former than the latter. The latter is an unnecessary assumption.