God does not exist

I'm breaking format a bit. I'm posting rebuttals from round 3 and also this round 4. Faith precedes the physical evidence Pro has used at least one faith like word---belief. Indeed you need to believe that evolution is truth or fact because evolution is not scientific fact, it's theory. My opponent has put all faith in the theory of evolution, which is completely based on circumstantial evidence. Such as We see a fossil, we carbon date it, thus we can infer a living organism existed 50 mya. Direct evidence of evolution does not exist because no-one has witnessed it. Thus my opponent has faith in something not seen. Pro describes two kinds of faith, namely blind faith, and informed faith." I too can stick any of my favorite adjectives in front of faith to make it sound even better or worse. The assertion here is that there is no evidence of a deity, so any faith on deity is blind. However I provided at least one form of evidence, so my faith isn't blind. Ultimately, building the term "blind faith" is a strawman for faith in deity as being plain blindness. Pro said in round 4 "Since I didn't put another new arguments in round 3 I will put a question to my opponent. : This is a debate on the existence of God, or a debate on is there any reason to believe in a God, if there is, what are the strongest reasons supporting the claim that God exists, is there something more than just faith, maybe evidence ? And is there any reason to believe in not just a creator, but the Christian God?" I'm putting this back on the faith issue. I see fellow theists venture into all sorts of philosophical explanations for God's existence, but I cannot get on the band wagon. It seems to detract from the heart of why we believe, and faith is ultimately the quality that must be explored. "We do science in order to be able to make accurate predictions in the natural world. I don't think you can really say that we need to have faith in previous work. If we have testable explanations and proof we don't need faith, that's the whole point, to let us think and act rationally and not depend on a belief system." You paid me a compliment earlier, and I thank you for it, and I should be careful with what I'm about to say because I don't know your background, but can't help but think that you haven't spent much time in a scientific field. Science is full of error. This article confirms my statement. http://journals.plos.org... Errors may occur in the execution of a statistical experiment design. Types of experimental error include human error, bias, omission of facts, or mistakes in data entry; systematic error, or mistakes in the design of the experiment itself; or random error, caused by environmental conditions or other unpredictable factors. Many peer reviewed articles admit to it. How many haven't? We don't know unless we go through the erroneous funding process, and redo the experiment exactly. How many researchers have you heard of doing that? Probably none, since scientists are constantly vying for new publication. Yes you do need faith that your colleagues are doing things correctly. Because you depend on their findings to support your hypotheses. Also I keep seeing "science proves". Science doesn't prove anything. Science supports or counters theories or hypotheses. Also science doesn't counter God, because God is not a scientific theory. 2. The idea of God is transcendent Pro said, "The man made illusion of God, came from the desire for authority." I invite Pro to substantiate this claim. It seems imaginary. It also contradicts what I have been reading in anthropology, that anthropologists now say that many early social structures were completely egalitarian. And if they were egalitarian, why would they seek an imaginary ruler? Pro said in round 3" "There is no particular reason to suggest that Christianity is more true than any other myth or fantasy..." and "If (Con) wants to advance on the claim that the Christian God is the right one, I will be happy to hear what he have to say about that, if he do it convincingly." and "Why choose any religion over another, since its based on blind faith." I'll address all of these in one swoop. It goes back to the idea that the idea of God is transcendent. Christians, Jews, and Muslims share the God of Abraham. Christians and Jews share the same God up until the New Testament. Even Greek gods, and Egyptian gods, etc," bear" similarities to each other. Also If you recall the first book in the Bible, Genesis, was written by Moses via vision of generations of man before his time. The Quran gives account of the creation, Adam and Eve, and reference to 50 other biblical names. This is clearly independent of Moses and Genesis. Who knows what earlier writings existed before the book of Genesis, and in other parts of the world. I'm inclined to believe that they all have a root origin. If there was one God in the beginning, then all variations of God are distortions of the original. So why is my God the true God? Because I rely on scripture, and spiritual apprehensions, and not culture norms or other irrational beliefs to discover His Identity. There isn't a comity to agree on the nature of God. We generally cannot take our diverse ideas and agree on God to form a common god, or a tree trunk. We only branch out and form a "tree crown," and the "leader" or direct line to the trunk is as spindly as the branches. Try this experiment. Put a group of Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics in the same room and tell them to emerge with a homogenized belief in God. Hint, it will be a blood bath. Even in my sect there can be some disagreement on the character of God. Ultimately it is up to the individual to discover who God is to the best of his/her ability. We are only given clues, and we must investigate. In this way, those that seek after God are rational people." If faith is based on irrational premises (fear, popularity, social norms, etc), then your probably not fit to dwell in His kingdom. As far as being rewarded in the hereafter according to our lives, my investigation tells me that those of other faiths will be judged on the truth that was available to them, as well as their desire to better understand. The absolute lack of evidence. I conceded to using circumstantial evidence of deity in round 3, yet Pro proceded to argue it. I provided direct evidence of deity, namely prophets, and it was dismissed as superstitious nonsense, or that science is not interested in it. Science cannot express interest in anything, it's a tool for understanding. Because of this inaccuracy, I'll rephrase Pro's statement. Atheists, are not interested in the testimony of the prophets. The Unnecessary explanation "(con) mentioned that God created man, if that is true I would like to know how, since you understand evolution. " I honestly don't know how, but I believe that He did. As a theist, its not important to know how God did it, but that we recognise the formation of the world was made as a testing ground for mankind, whether he used evolution and forming man from clay is symbolic, or if he literally made man from inorganic clay, Holy script doesn't say. That's why evolution shouldn't be scary, because we are free to learn about our natural world. "Well, if the Bible contradicts with science we can certainly disprove the supernatural claims." Scientific findings don't have to contradict the Bible. I find that much of the Bible is both symbolic and litteral.