God definitely does not exist, and the agnostic view is wrong.

My opponent challenges me on the definition of "natural". First of all, the definition of "natural" that is cited by my opponent is self contradictory if followed through to its ultimate meaning. People are creations of evolution, and are part of nature just as everything else. So are ants, bees, beavers and bacteria and all the effects of their activities. Also, please note that I don't equate nature or "natural" with just the material universe. I equate nature with everything that exists, including anything that we haven't yet discovered that exists. Note that nature also includes immaterial things such as "thoughts": they exist as processes of our minds. In conclusion I use nature as equivalent to everything that exists, the universe. The claim that God is supernatural is precisely using the term "natural" in my sense, and not in the sense of the definition my opponent cited. However, despite that definitions may differ for the concept of "natural", this doesn't change the essence of my argument that God is claimed to be outside of natural existence. I will restate my argument slightly to remove the ambiguity, and to move our discussion away from the definition of "natural". God is supposed to be outside of everything that exists, because he was supposed to have created everything that exists. In other words, God is expected to be out-of-existence -- contradiction. Please note that even if God was an immaterial being, like a ghost (although this assertion is arbitrary, it lacks any evidence), he would not satisfy the tall order that God is supposed to be. For even such a being would be an alien from a realm in existence, not more. Furthermore, this being could not have created existence because he is part of it. He at best could have created material part of the existence, the physical universe. But that's not good enough for what God is supposed to be. Even such a "ghost" is part of nature (nature would include even the ghostly beings), but God is supposed to be beyond that. My opponent asks me to present evidence that God doesn't exist. When one reaches a logical contradiction, no further evidence is required. Evidence is required when there is no observed contradiction and a theory is plausible. Another example of a statement that requires no experiment to be declared as false is the statement "I do not exist". Furthermore, my opponent cites the Big Bang and physics theories, but these are irrelevant to discussion. However, I will just state that no theory can assert that universe was created out of nothing. As mentioned above, nothing can be created out of nothing. Any theory that claims the contrary, is wrong in that aspect. Also, my opponent talks about belief. Belief is not a valid method of knowledge. If he wishes to believe a theory, it is his prerogative, but he can't rely on it as part of a rational discussion. He may only rely on what he knows, not on what he believes in. In conclusion, my argument is that the concept of God is flawed philosophically, on logical evaluation alone. No further experiments are required. I challenge my opponent to address my logical argument.