Science has shown or is about to show that we don't need God as an explanation

Some interesting points, Pro. First off, the purpose of my arguments with the GUT and other scientific breakthroughs was to illustrate how much more we know today about how the universe works. Before modern science, people would attribute scientific phenomena as an act of God, and it was believed that He caused plagues, natural disasters, etc. The title of this debate was "Science has shown or is about to show that we don't need God as an explanation". So while a GUT doesn't disprove God's existence, there is less of a need for Him as an explanation for governance of the universe. You stated that "theists regard God's creation as a continuous act including but not limited to the beginning". With a GUT, it is possible to explain every interaction between particles in the universe. Whether or not God intervenes in the universe, we cannot say, but it is possible to explain the universe without Him. "Evolution doesn't tell us that life isn't designed". So through a double negative, are you saying that evolution tells us that life is designed? Evolution helps explain why humans are who we are, without having to use the idea that God created us through intelligent design. Of course, the design argument goes beyond the biological design, but I'll address that in a moment.My opponent has essentially turned this into an existence of God debate by employing three a posteriori arguments, even though he explicitly stated in the first round that this was not about God's existence. Nevertheless, I will address his arguments that he made.I'll begin with transcendental argument. Science could say that the reason for morality is that a society would be ungovernable without one. Through evolution, humans who had a sense of morality and didn't do things such as kill their neighbors were more likely to survive because working together in a group offered protection and more success at hunting and finding mates. On the other hand, a god doesn't necessarily imply goodness of morality. For that argument, we would have to know the nature of god itself. While the Christian God is benevolent and would promote goodness and morality, it is also possible for a malevolent god or a dystheistic god. However, the even bigger question is: Does morality exist? To quote Rousseau on this matter, "Savages are not evil precisely because they do not know what it is to be good." To say morality exists because of a god, we must look at our definition of morality and whether it is equally applied everywhere. Something such as cannibalism, which is considered evil by humans, may be widely practiced by some animals. Do animals feel a sense of guilt when they kill other animals? We may never know. And even if morality does exist, is it objective or subjective? Humans do not all have the same sense of morality and the line between right and wrong is often hazy. While some people think abortion is wrong, other might think it is a woman's right to decide what she wants to do with her fetus. So, science can be seen as an explanation for why morality exists through evolution, if it even exists at all.The cosmological argument is inherently flawed by attempting to avoid infinite causality by attributing everything back to a single, initial cause. However, we must ask ourselves what caused this initial cause. How did God come into existence? If the cosmological argument is that there was a single beginning, why did this beginning begin? Even if we assume the cosmological argument is correct, one could easily use it from a scientific standpoint as well. First of all, the cosmological argument does not necessarily imply a god. Therefore, one could say that the Big Bang was the unmoved mover of the universe. Now, one might object to this argument and use the same argument as I did, asking what caused the Big Bang. They might reason that the creator god caused the Big Bang. However, this is inconceivable, since the Big Bang also created space-time. In other words, there was nothing before the Big Bang, not even time or nothing itself. This might be hard to imagine, but in outer space, there is almost no matter and it is a vacuum. However, the space-time fabric and the framework for what matter could exist in did not exist. Thus, the beginning of the universe lies with the Big Bang, and any before this is impossible. Once again, evolution plays a role in refuting the design argument. Any arguments for intelligent design could simply be the forces of natural selection at work. Now if we examine the conditions for life to exist, we see that there is a very narrow range for life to exist under temperature, weak force constant, gravitational constant, etc. However, the anthropic principle states that our universe must be within this narrow range because if it wasn't, no life would be able to observe it. As to why the universe has order and is intelligible, this may be little more than a coincidence of nature. God has not enabled other animals to have a working knowledge of the universe. Only humans, who obtained a more intelligent brain through evolution, have gained this ability. Does an intelligible universe rule out the possilbility of a universe governed by science? I don't see why it should. Does an intelligible universe necessarily imply a god? Not necessarily. To use your analogy, being able to understand a "story" doesn't tell us anything about the author itself. Perhaps some superior being did fashion our universe, but this does not mean they are omnipotent or even the creator of the universe.