There is no God

Hello, and good luck to my opponent. After reading the opening statement of his argument, I am convinced of two things: 1) my opponent undertook this debate at least in part to disparage faith. 2) My opponent posesses a distressing lack of understanding of the state of American Socio-Politics as well as the Christian mind, as does the author, Sam Harris, that he quotes. As I continued to read, it became apparent that my opponent has no real solid evidence that there is no God, only misinformed, opinionated, nonsensical vitrol. There is little to disprove here, mostly unrefined opinions typical of someone who stands on the shoulders of thinkers and regurgitates witless circular logic without examining it completely for themselves. Now, if my opponent wishes to abandon his opening "prison rules" debate style and continue this in a civilized fashion, I will be most pleased to oblige. 1) Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle- has nothing to do with the subject of this debate. It is an advanced concept common in quantum physics, which if anything, bring a great shadow of doubt on the laws of physics that you use to disprove the existence of God. The supposed "test" of the existence of God is flawed in it's principle. God does not need to prove he exists to us. We all know it somewhere in the back of our minds. Which explains why a vast majority of mankind believes in a Supreme Being of some form or another. The interpretation of the test results are jaded by my opponents desire for God not to exist. God showed His worthiness of our praise in his creation of everything (including my opponent), and by His offer of salvation. "God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because 'infinite' is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god." This argument doesn't make sense because his linchpin assumption(the definition of "infinite") is incorrect. Infinite- adj. (1) immeasurably great. (2) indefinitely or exceedingly great. (3) unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc. (4) unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless. (dictionary.com) At no point, did the term "all-inclusive" come up. God is infinite, but that doesn't mean He is the universe. He was before the universe and will be after the universe. The argument is based on fallacy. 2) Occam's Razor- The practical upshot of this is "the simplest explanation is probably correct", or "keep it simple". SO... Let's compare: Pro's stance- The universe as it exists today is the result of a series of billions of coincidences that are so bizarrely unlikely, it is an incredible coincidence that we exist today. Con's stance- God willed it, and it was so. The assertation that crediting God with something is a non-explanation is only half-correct. Pro fails to understand the implication that "God did it that way because God wanted it that way". Which is a perfectly acceptable "why", considering God is all-knowing and all-powerful. We can't fathom the reasoning of God, and so the "fact of" is acceptable. Occam's Razor stands in favor of God. As to the impossibility of things, these things are impossible for you and me based on our understanding of the rules that govern our universe. But, as stated above, God is not the universe. I think the concept of "omnipotent" is lost on my opponent. This means that there is NOTHING that God cannot do. And regarding paradoxes in omnipotence, again, they are based on our understanding of the rules that govern our universe. Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean that it isn't possible. "Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the 'future' (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If god has no free will god is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If god stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if god stands above all dimensions god is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void! Besides there can exist no free wills at all if god is almighty. If you had a free will, god wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent." Another argument held together by chewing gum, duct tape and a desire for God to not exist (for what reason, I can only guess). Again, just because a superdimensional (not dimensionless) God doesn't conform to our perceptions (four dimensions) doesn't mean that His existence is void. There's a lot of things I don't understand. That doesn't mean that everything that I don't understand is a figment of my imagination. 3) Yes. The 7-day story contradicts violently with the scientific "explanation" of our origins. Because the scientific "explanation" was cooked up for the sole reason of supplanting faith-based creation stories. There was no evidence there. Just numbers and that the 7-day creation "violently contradicts" the big bang theory as if those words were supposed to trigger some form of pavlovian response against Creationism. My opponent failed to prove anything by his arguments. So... based on the provided arguments, the statement that "there is no God" is thoroughly disproved.