Evolution is proven fact. The god of the bible cannot be proved.

Now, as he kindly pointed out in end of his third paragraph, I will get to the point. My opponent says that God cannot be proven, and he clarifies this in his fourth paragraph, stating "Until god waves his rosey red flag, he's a forgery. How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen? " So, to summarize, God is not to be believed in because there is no DIRECT EVIDENCE of him. But, there is also no direct evidence of his NON-EXISTANCE, and because of this, we cannot disprove him. Therefore, I can just as well say, "Until God waves his pale white flag, he's real. How can you disprove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen? " Just because something is unproved does not mean it should be dismissed. For instance, take the notorious Casey Anthony trial. After 33 days of court deliberation and rock-hard evidence, the jury came back with a verdict of not guilty on the charges of first-degree murder [1]. Does this mean that she is innocent? No, it doesn"t. In fact, after the verdict was delivered, "USA Today" conducted a poll and reported that about 2/3 of Americans believed she was guilty of killing her three-year-old daughter [2]. Now, as my opponent has previously stated, there will be no official format, so I will, "Go with the flow". As well, my opponent has not delivered any evidence of God"s non-existence. I am a Christian, and I believe in the Big Bang (in fact, it was a Catholic priest named Georges Lema"tre"that first proposed the theory [3]). Now, backwardsedan made it clear that he will not believe anything he cannot see, as stated, "How can you prove something that is unproved and something that is unknown and something that has never been seen? " Now, I call him to the stand to answer my cross-examination, "Has he or anyone ever seen the Big Bang? " The obvious answer is no. Now, he has a dilemma. If he has never seen the Big Bang, and he has never seen God, how does he choose which is believe? He will probably agree with the one that has the most evidence. Now, I will take the time to point out my evidence. As I previously stated, there is no DIRECT EVIDENCE God"s existence. What we do have though, is what is known as CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Consider it like this. Let"s say a witness is on the stand for witnessing a murder, and they say they saw a man fire a gun and shoot a man. Now, if the witness and their testimony can be trusted, it is known as DIRECT EVIDENCE. Let"s change the scenario a bit. Suppose instead of seeing the gun fire and the man fall, they were in their house, HEARD the gun fire, and heard a car speeding away. They go outside to check, and then see the man"s body on the ground. This would not be direct evidence, because they did not directly see the crime, but it is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, because we can reasonably use the evidence to lean toward someone was shot and killed. For a more thorough explanation, please refer to this link [4]. Circumstantial evidence is more commonly used for cold-cases, and that is exactly what the case for God is; It is an investigation of an unsolved mystery from the distant past with little or no forensic evidence and little to no living eyewitnesses. For the sake of time, I will only discuss the evidence of FINE-TUNING, and I may choose to elaborate more in a future round. Both atheists and theists are burdened with the same question, "How did this all start? " For the majority of theists, a higher power created the universe. For the majority of atheists, a happy little cosmic accident. If it was an accident, it was a pretty convenient one. The theory of fine-tuning is that the universe has been specially designed to sustain life. Even Stephen Hawking, the world"s most famous scientist and atheist, has stated "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. . .. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. " [5] For instance, if the strength of the Big Bang had differed in its strength by 1 in 10^60 more or less, the universe would have collapsed back onto itself or have expanded too fast for stars to form. For an illustration, imagine shooting a gun from one end of the observable universe to a one-inch target on the other side, which is 20 billion light years away, and hitting it. For the sake of time, I will leave my argument here for the time being. I will be starting my rebuttal and providing more evidence for my case in the next round. God Bless. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] . http://www.cnn.com... [2] . http://www.cbsnews.com... [3] . http://www.nationalgeographic.com... [4] . https://www.justia.com... [5] Stephen Hawking, 1988. "A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, p. 7, 125.