God exists

I would like to thank Pro for proposing this debateThe first thing I want to review is the resolution"God exists"I do want to point out what I have to do to win and what my adversary must do to win. He must show that God exists. He can not show that God probably exists, or that there is a possibility that God exists, but must abide by the resolutionThis is a positive claim, and by saying this he is affirming that God does exist. There must be empirical and direct evidence to support this statement, and he must not operate under assumptionIt is my job to provide reasonable doubt, and also show why we do not need a God. An Impossible StanceAtheism and Christians share one common issue. The issue is they both claim a positive statement. Atheist claim "God does not exist", Christians claim that "God does exist". The fundamental failure in both of these stances, is that we are discussing something that cannot be tested or proven to be factual. This is commonly explained through an analogy called Russel's Teapot." Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God." [1][2]This is the most logical way to try and address an argument like this. It is psychically impossible for Christians to claim that they are correct because there is no way to they can be proven wrong. Atheist have the same issue in a similar way. It is impossible to say that they are right because there is no way to prove it either. No need for Creationism. This is a simple appeal to Occam's Razor. If we have a working model of how the universe began and was created, why add unnecessary changes to the model that is already working. Through modern science we can clearly see how the universe began, and that it does not need a creator to jump start it. There are things that are called quantum flotations that can explain how matter and space first began to exist. To first address this question we need to ask can something come from nothing? Let's ask the novel prize winner David Grosshttp://www.youtube.com...Gross showed that the space between quarks in a proton can produce matter and energy randomly from nothing. They can exist and come into place through quantum fluctuation. So yes something can come from nothing. The next thing we have to address is what type of universe do we live in. We can live in an open , flat , or closed universe. This is also addressed with curvature. The universe can be Positive, Negative, or Flat. All three geometries are classes of what is called Riemannian geometry, based on three possible states for parallel linesnever meeting (flat or Euclidean)must cross (spherical)always divergent (hyperbolic) [3] The universe is commonly accepted as a flat universe. " Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."[4]The perfect part about this is that a flat universe yields total energy 0. Which is the only universe that can produce quantum fluctuation and actually spawn random universe into existence. [5]ProbabilityWhen determining if something is actually a working model or viable model, there are a variety of factors that go into play. One of which is probability. The irony of this is that probability is actually in my favor. I can show that a God probably does not exist and meet my part of the resolution. My adversary can not abide by this and must show empirical evidence. That is the downside of the resolution and claiming such a bold stance. ExampleLet's examine this statement"Chickens like to peck the ground"Now lets have a little thought experiment. Pretend we have no idea what a chicken is. We have just discovered them and we are observing facts about them. We have ten chickens in ten different pens. We notice that the first 8 chickens like to peck the ground. The ninth does not. So when we go to watch the tenth, what is the most logical conclusion we are going to arrive at? The chicken will probably like to peck the ground. We can assume this because it is a trend among the majority of other chickens. Through experiments like this, hypotheses and theories are developed. Working theories often share a common theme and can be proven through verifiable evidence. How do we know chickens like to peck the ground? Because 99 percent of chickens like to do this. Even if 80 percent of chickens liked to peck the ground, if we were going to make a theory it would be something like "most chickens like to peck the ground"ConclusionCreationism is an outdated idea that should have long since been discarded. We have working models such as evolution, and even the string theory to help us understand how we began to exist. When we are normally dealing in terms of logic and rationality we take basics facts and compare it to other basic factsThe issue with God is that you can insert any variable in place of God and it would have the same tone and argument. You could say (x) created the universe. There is no way to prove it or disprove it, the only logical way to address this is the previous ones that I mentioned. Do we need (x) to explain how and why the universe operates? No we do not, we have working models in every way, shape, and form that help us understand how and why we existThe resolution we are looking at is "God exists"Perhaps you could prove it is rational to believe in creationism but it is almost impossible to prove that it is viable. When compared to modern scientific data and facts. There is no need for it.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://russell.mcmaster.ca...[3]http://abyss.uoregon.edu...[4]http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...[5]Lawerence Krauss; A Universe from nothing