God exists

Hello. Pro argues that God exists, and he has the burden of proof to show that God exists. I wll be doing miainly rebuttals. Since Pro did not define God, I shall define it. Pro has taken a "personal god" aproach in his R1 argument, and I will define it as follows.God - A perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and personal being that created the universe and humans. ========The universe was not created by this and thatMy opponent uses a variant of the Kalam cosmological argument for his first argument. He states "IF the universe had a beginning and the universe came from nothing as the big bang theory states, what created the universe had to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, and out of nature (supernatural) space less, timeless and immaterial because that qualifies as nothing."There are many things wrong with this. First, the Big Bang Theory does not state that the universe came from nothing - it only states that the unverse had a beginning, and that beginning was a rapid expansion from a tiny space of matter that could be called a singularity. So, in the "beginning" of this universe, there was not "nothing," rather, there was the Big Bang, and there isn't necessarily even a "before" when referencing the Big Bang. Second, the entire paragraph is a set up for a non-sequitor spilt in the middle by a comma. Because a thing has a beginning, doesn't mean it was created. Third, even if the universe was "created," it is completely without support to attach the adjectives to how the universe was created. More over, those adjectives are contraditary to each other. While everything else describes what "nothing" does not have, "personal" is simply not something that "nothing" does not have. Fourth, the response is simply pushing "creation" further back. If the universe was created, then what created the creator? There is simply no support given for the proposals in this statement, and indeed the statement contradict it self. There is neither evidence nor probablistic for the following statement"This is what God sounds like to me. A supernatural being that is personable"None was given, and that's because there just isn't any. Evolution of organisms is most likely trueMy oppenent states that "there is no evidence for Darwinism being truthful." By this he probably means that he does not believe that life evolved form simpler organisms. On the contrary, there is a massive amount of evidence for evolution, in fact, I owuld argue that evolution has the most diverse source of evidence of any field of study. Fossile records tell scientists that organisms change over time, and when those slight changes accumulate of millions of years, life forms adapts to their in different and complex ways, creating both the diversity, complexity, and unity of life today. This article is a source for the evidence of human evolution [ http://humanorigins.si.edu...;]. Studies of fossiles, genes, and radiometric dating provide clear evidence for the occurance of evolution. Morality is independent of an all-powerful sourceAs I argued in my previous debates, morality's actions' values is completely subjective to the species that use it. "Killing and eating babies for fun" is wrong because the net utility for killing and eating a baby is probably negative. The net utility for arbitrarily killing 11 milllion people is probably negative. The "objective standard written on your heart" are out of reason, not something aribtrary, like the claimed god.