God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

I will start. Premise 1: God was not necessary for the beginning of the universe. As Stephen Hawking said, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. " There is evidence directly contradicting all known religious accounts of creation, since we know there was a Big Bang. Quantum fluctuations are most likely the cause for the Big Bang, which would come from a quantum vacuum that's equivalent to nothing. A classic argument against this, however, is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the First Cause Argument. Which outlines that if the universe and time had beginnings, then they were caused by something. However, cause and effect could not apply before the existence of time, so the Kalam is made invalid here automatically. Another made directly for God's existence would be the Ontological argument, which states that if you accept God as a possibility, then his existence would automatically follow. This, however, is even more broken than the Kalam as it clearly outlines that thinking about God will make him exist. Another is the Argument from Morality and Logic, which says that morals are commands, so there must have been a commander. This functions much like the Kalam, and is just as invalid in this case. Morals and Logic are not "absolute" in the conventional sense; they are human concepts and did not need a god for their inception. However, even if these arguments held any water, they are still broken and non-sequiturs for the beginning of the universe, and going from believing in a cause for the universe to a personal deity is a very large leap of faith, indeed. So to sum up my argument here, God was not necessary for the beginning of the universe due to quantum fluctuations causing the Big Bang. Premise 2: There is no real evidence for God. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. " There is no known physical and empirical evidence of God, therefore making such a claim unsupported. But to cite metaphysics as proof is fallacious, because it is philosophy, not science, which deals with what is observable, testable, and repeatable. Many arguments for God's existence are God of the Gaps augments and arguments from ignorance. Just because we don't know everything does not mean we can place a god in the gaps of our ignorance. Many years ago God was thought to be the cause of rain, but we now know that it occurred naturally. God's role has diminished significantly as science has advanced; they thought God caused all sorts of naturally occurring things such as rain, wind, and of course the beginning of the universe. If we could find that these things occurred naturally, then surely we can keep looking and will most likely find a natural cause for the universe. To sum up my argument here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is absent in this case; and that God can be placed in any gap in science, but that doesn't bring him any closer to being real. I wasn't anticipating a structured debate, and I was thinking of a simple rhetorical exchange, so I apologize if my opening argument appears shabby, but I look forward to hearing Wylted's.