You are invited to attempt to prove the existence of your god

My opponent has erroneously stated that they have numerous rebuttals for 'sciences theories on the non existence of a God'. This implies that the purpose of science is to disprove such things. The opposite of religion however is not science and science does not strive to disprove the existence of any deity. Science is the systematic study of the natural and physical world, therefore any 'deity' shrinks as science advances. This is merely a bi-product of scientific pursuit. I would like to ask my opponent if, in light of the fact that the big bang is simply the most prevalent idea for how the universe came into being, it transpired that the big bang did not occur, would this then cause them to no longer believe in god, seeing as they believe this cosmic event gives weight to the existence of god. Once again, my opponent has faltered in her reasoning and has taken the liberty and courtesy of trying to explain my own understanding to me. Is it not that evolution is fact and that I, in turn, accept it to be so, based on demonstrable and measurable evidence which makes me reject theistic claims. Once again, if evolution theory were to crumble it would not make the existence of a god any more likely. I reject theistic claims based on reasoning, logic and a complete, total and utter lack of tangible evidence to give 'god' credit. I invite Pro to read this definition: Natural Law - "an observable law relating to natural phenomena". Can the Pro provide a law of nature which has not been observed? My opponent takes a massive leap here, offering a horribly flawed argument, by stating that it is just as rational to believe in natural law as it is to believe in an all powerful cosmic creator - whom, by theistic belief, is himself supernatural. This is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. If it were this simple, every person, scientists included, with an understanding of natural law, would embrace god as their creator. This reasoning is regretfully absurd. Pro then goes on to state a very misplaced belief that "[...]if any theory were fact this would make science itself a contradiction [...]". Respectfully, it is alarming that my opponent can have such an ignorant view of science. My opponents argument can be honestly summed up as follows - if just one theory is fact, science would have no purpose. Again, whether my opponent accepts it or not, evolution is fact. No theist nor atheist can disprove evolution as fact. Thankfully Pro's reasoning is not solid here or science would indeed have no further purpose. Pro then goes on to make several statements. It is evident Pro cannot see a purpose for the universe and life without the existence of a god. Pro's reasoning is subjective and narrow minded. My opponent goes on to rely on Thomas Aquinas' arguments for gods existence - the 'unmoved mover' and the 'uncaused cause' - both rely on an infinite regress - what caused the big bang - and invoke a god to terminate this regress. I simply request that Pro provide tangible evidence that god actually exists and would ask Pro to explain why god is immune to the infinite regress their arguments rely on. "Natural law, design and order in the universe conclude in a law maker, designer or order maker to exist". - this is purely subjective and I am disappointed this argument has also been used. This is the argument from design and is an ignorant one - things look designed therefore they must be... My opponent cannot fathom how the universe could progress in the way it has, unguided, therefore a god must have guided this progression. Perhaps my opponent does not realize that subjective reasoning does not amount to proof when it comes to a god claim.. I am running out of space so I will regretfully have to finish. Abiogenesis shows that life can come from non-living matter. So far my opponent has provided purely subjective reasoning to support the existence of their god. I will attempt to cover the outstanding points in my next rebuttal