Knowledge of a God's Existence or Non-Existence is Not Possible

Brilliant, this is as good of a debate so far as I thought it would be. I believe the proper form of rebuttal is to attack your case and move to rebuild my own, so that is the format I will be following in this post. The argument from design. I have a problem with the relevance of your points under your section entitled "Problem" which doesn't relate to a debate about knowledge of God but rather a criticism of a possible manner of observation when the belief in God is added. I will however accept your challenge to answer your question. It seems reasonable to me that a God who created a universe as beautiful as ours would take the time to design a rather large variety of any species of animal for different parts of the world. I would also argue that cross-species mating lead to a growth in the variety of beetles, however it is still reasonable to believe a creative God would be that creative. The ontological argument: I'll include my attack concerning your point here in a conclusion of my rebuttal. The Moral Argument: The problem with assuming morality outside of the premise of God is actually touched in by Immanuel Kant. He states that if there is no afterlife and no God to judge then immoral acts will be left unpunished. So morals can't be enforced without a.p God. Kant believed in a God, but moral relativism (belief that morality is decided based on individual perception) is the side that does not believe in God. Under moral relativism, the only true immoral act is doing something that you feel is wrong just because you feel you have to. In this system there is no universal moral good or bad. There is only the individual perceptions of what good and bad are. Essentially, morality becomes irrelevant without a God because without a superior judge of moral actions there is no way to determine whether an action itself is moral or not. Accepting universal morality must include the acceptance of God. Appeals to Personal Experience Concerning your argument here, I will concede that even though I could personally tell a story, it's not a good epistemological argument. So I will move on to the conclusion of this section of the rebuttal, which I believe points out a flaw in your system of argumentation. Summary: You criticized me for doing something that you are actually doing. What I did was attack arguments concerning evolution to attempt to take away that possibility. What you have done is attempt to discredit defenses for God. We're a little bit far into the debate to start over on our approach, but I would ask that I not be criticized for my argumentation, when yours is the same style. My case: I would like to briefly rebuild some of my own points. The argument from rationality. I have actually had prior reading on quantum mechanics in the area you're talking about, and ironically I've read the Cornell article you posted. Unfortunately, not much is known about it, but it's theorized that the atoms that actually appear to fade in and out of existence are either changing dimensions or (something not mentioned in your source) splitting into things we can't scan with modern instruments. The problem with this is that it still implies that there's matter to begin with, and somewhere along the way there has to be a state of ultimate entropy. The argument from design You're right I did pick a theory that's still widely accepted. While there amy be other theories, all of them end up with the same problem. There needs to be something in the systems mentioned that can decrease entropy long enough for the cells to evolve or the will dissolve into their basic components rendering them useless. So far the only explanation is natural selection, but for the beginnings of life, there is no way to justify that claim seeing as the new life wouldn't have adequate time to adapt to their extreme conditions. My ultimate point with this is that it's easily justifiable to say that God created these things, while it is nearly impossible to justify the claims of the scientific community concerning evolution. Thank you for the debate so far, and I expect your final post will be just as good as the others.