God's exists

Burden of ProofPRO never contested that he had the burden of proof to prove that God existed, whereas in order to win, I only need to prevent him for fulfilling that burden. Even after his response, he has yet to do that because the question of God has no truth value. He can make arguments for why he believes God exists or why a God may fit into his worldview, but he cannot prove it because the question is beyond our comprehension. Therefore, you're voting CON by default. Furhter, as I'll explain in a bit, PRO plagiarized much of his argument, so you're voting for me anyway. Origins of Existence PRO's first argument doesn't actually make a positive argument in favor of God, but only poses questions as to where life came from. He offers a false analogy about the creation of this website, forgetting that there's plenty of scientific backing for how the universe could have self-created. Dr. Michio Kaku offers the following: "But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer. Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy. ) If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing. This gives us a startling picture of the big bang, that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes (the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. So universes are being created all the time. " [. http://bigthink.com...]In other words, the universe can self-create, without the necessity of a God, meaning that God is nothing more than an assumption which we reject via Occam's Razor. This does not disprove that there could be a God, but it is not my burden to disprove him, but only to refute PRO's arguments with respect to the necessity of a God. All PRO is doing is substituting something he doesn't understand for something he doesn't understand. Uncertainty can never take the place of uncertainty, meaning he cannot possily prove the existence of God. His Next Two Capitalized HeadingsHis next two heading, from "many who believe in evolution" to "researchers have also recreated in a laboratory" was plagiarized from this link: . http://wol.jw.org... not tolerate plagiarism--vote CON. Further, he doesn't even formualate this into a coherent argument. How does this experiment prove God in the slightest? Why shoud we care about what the scientist supposedly "represented? " or "where the instructions from DNA came from? " None of that in the slightest provides evidenc for GOD. PRO goes on to talk about the Bible and claim that the Bible does not contradict science. This is patently false. (1) The Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old. The Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old. (2) The Bible says there was a Great Flood. Geological evidence tells us there was no Great Flood (. http://www.bibleinterp.com...). Further, such a flood would not have been possible because we couldn't have placed so many animals which require so many different living conditions together and expected harmony and for enough to survive to sustain a population. There's a lot more wrong with the Bible, and this only a starting point, but these are enough to completely destroy PRO's arguments. Conclusion PRO has plagiarized and provided us with nothing more than an incoherent argument that doesn't fulfill his BOP.