God does not exist

My opponent has said that I have not provided any proof that non-sentient causes are more powerful than sentient ones based on all available knowledge. The question must be asked, is it really necessary? I believe it's self-evident but that would be quite a cop out of me to just leave it at that, so I will quickly provide evidence and reasoning for why the most powerful causes are sentient based on all available knowledge.The most powerful causes are non-sentientA black hole for example is more powerful than any sentience we know of, it doesn't matter what a sentient being does it will get sucked into a black hole, meaning the black hole is clearly more powerful. The non-sentient caused nuclear explosions on the sun are far more powerful than any nuclear explosions any sentient being we know of can create. No sentient being we know of has the power to form a galaxy, but quantum fluctuations [1] in the early universe and gravity are non-sentient and can form galaxies. Also, the only sentience we know exists, exists on earth. This is one small planet in a random solar system, even if extra-terrestrial intelligence existed it couldn't compare to the vast number of powerful non-sentient causes.So since there only two options (Either it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical “outside” the universe, or it is nonsensical), if it is sensical, then it's only logical that the universe had a non-sentient cause, because they are more frequent in number and are more powerful. If it is nonsensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical “outside” the universe, then a cause is contradictory"P2: It is nonsensical to believe a cause can exist outside the universe.....Okay. That's a start. So what proof do you have to support it. So he says"Since there are only two options, and one of them requires the use of within the universe as a guideline and this requires that the use of the universe a guidelines is not present, then it's illogical to claim the universe had a cause because causes exist within the universe. The logical proof is the fact that there are only two options, either it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical “outside” the universe, or it is nonsensical. Since both of them do not support a sentient cause of the universe, then there logically is no sentient cause of the universe.My opponent did not adequately refute my arguments:"Yet the inability of my opponent to provide sound logic does not automatically prove the existence of God. The proof of God's existence is in the following:"I did show that when faced with necessary options, regardless of which one picked, it does not support a sentient being. Since I gave support for my claims in this round they still stand.The huge error in my opponent's response, is it only addressed 1 out of my 3 arguments against the existence of God. I had 3 arguments and he only attempted to refute 1 and that didn't even hold. My opponent has clearly failed to tear down my arguments and jumped right into providing his own, well I refute his arguments as follows.Intelligent creation cannot originate from unintelligence"What is the definition of unintelligence. Unintelligence is defined as the inability to learn and comprehend. In other words, no intelligence. Thus by definition, unintelligence cannot have originated intelligence because by definition, it is unintelligent." Something doesn't have to have the ability to learn and comprehend in order to change the form of something or rearrange something in a complex form. Gravity can rearrange matter to form a planet and gravity cannot learn or comprehend for example, my opponent must first prove why a "creation" is intelligent. As far as intelligence originating from non-intelligence goes, why not? Saying that because "something that is not intelligent is something that is not intelligent, therefore, cannot originate something intelligent" is like saying "something that is not a plant is not a plant, therefore, cannot originate a plant". Of course a seed is not a plant, but a plant can come from it. Basically, just because something isn't X (like unintelligence isn't intelligent) doesn't mean X can't come from it. Threads and stuffing aren't cute, that doesn't mean that a cute teddy bear cannot come from it, so in retrospect, unintelligence is not intelligent, but that doesn't mean intelligence cannot come from it.What my opponent calls logic, I call a massive logical fallacy. A pattern that repeats itself can only originate from intelligenceThis is the most outrages argument I have ever read, of course a pattern that repeats can originate from a non-intelligent cause. Snow Flakes "Snowflakes are conglomerations of frozen ice crystals which fall through the Earth's atmosphere. They begin as snow crystals which develop when microscopic supercooled cloud droplets freeze." [2] Microscopic supercooled cloud prop lets freezing due to certain temperatures are not intelligent, and can create the intricate patterns we see in snow flakes that repeat.Flowers The contents in the ground are non-intelligent, yet they can cause the patterns we see in flowers (pedals, stems ect.) and repeat quite often. Thus, debunking once more the claim that only intelligence can originate patterns that repeat.Planet formationPlanets are formed by gravity clumping matter together. Since gravity is non-intelligent, and planets seem to show off the repeated patterns of spherical shapes, then you are once more again, proven wrong.Patterns that repeat clearly can come from non-intelligence, thus making my opponent's argument's baseless.Creation by Chance causes disorderMy opponent assumes that either something can only be 100% random, or intelligent. We know this is not true, if you plant a tree, a sandwich isn't going to randomly come out simply because the seed is not intelligent.Unless my opponent proves that non-randomness can only stem from intelligence (which I showed was false), then he has no grounds in this debate.Re-CapMy opponent only attempted at refuting 1 out of my 3 arguments, therefore my opponent has failed at adequately refuting me. I even refuted his refutation of my first argument, and clearly showed how his arguments for God were completely based on false assumptions.God does not existAt least as far as both of are arguments are concerned, God does not exist.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...