Resolved: The Christian God Most Likely Doesn't Exist

Defense: 1First off, my opponent states that I have to prove that there is no god. However, this is false for the reasons I have already stated. My opponent has made claims with out evidence that goes by what people say rather then what can be proved in the natural world around us. I will be taking the stance of the late Christopher Hitchens who said: 'That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. ' [1]. If my opponent is going to be able to get anywhere in this debate, he must do two things:1. State specific scientific evidence that god doesn't exist.2. Refute my other two contentions. Until he does this these things he has no hope of winning this debate. Defense 2My opponent then brings up that some people claim that they have seen heaven and hell. However, I that these people didn't. Furthermore, I say I do not even need to disprove what has not even been proven. People of all religions claim to see things that their religion says are real but our contrary to the what the Bible and its god supposedly said. Take for instance Muhammad's "visitation" from a angel for example it is something contrary to the Bible, Joseph Smith's "visitation" from a angel, and Buddha's 'enlightenment', etc. They all claim that something supernatural has happened and yet they are all far from being similar to each other. Christianity is no different the others, and it's obviously a mental mishap or outright lies[2,3,4]. Defense 3My opponent has completely misunderstood my third contention. It is not whether if he wants to or why wants to, it is if he can! I was pointing out the logical impossibility that my opponent just can't refute. therefore, my third contention still stands. Refutation 1What my opponent has stated about this so called 'ark' is a unproven claim. It hasn't been confirmed to be authentic. On the contrary many scientists and archaeologists say that there is a very big chance that it is a hoax. Scientists have found evidence that it could have been constructed by local Kurds (Kurds are mostly Christian) for the Chinese evangelicals who claim to have 'fount' it. The appearance is not enough, it must be confirmed [5.6]. Refutation 2And now it is time for the exciting part of my refutation. The argument from design is literally the oldest of all arguments for theism. So, I shall prove why it is more probable that the earth and everything is 15 billion years old, and the product of what is referred to by the majority of modern cosmologists as the Big Bang. So I will start with the Big Bangs evidence, then I will prove why a god could not have done. In 1929 Edwin Hubble, working at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, measured the redshifts of a number of distant galaxies. He also measured their relative distances by measuring the apparent brightness of a class of variable stars called Cepheids in each galaxy. When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding. Once scientists understood that the universe was expanding, they immediately realized that it would have been smaller in the past. At some point in the past, the entire universe would have been a single point. This point is of beginning is called the 'Big Bang' because there is no other reasonable explanation [7,8]. Now, I will state that there is no way that it could have been started by a creator. I will do this with this thing called Quantum Mechanics. It has been observed by numerous scientists where energy, neutrons, electrons, and protons can appear out of absolutely nowhere. This proves that one does not need a divine cause to make everything come into existence [9,10,11]. Furthermore, this world is not cdesigned because:1. It took billions of years for this to happen, not six days.2. It is not perfect and therefore, does not intell that it was created by an all-powerful god.1. In defense of 1, I contend that the methods such as carbon dating, melecular dating, and radioactive dating are all quite reliable for determining that the Earth, and the universe is billions of years old [12,13,14].2. And in my defense of 2, I contend that the biological lifeforms on this planet are not perfect in design, and neither is the universe. For example: we humans are proned to back troubles, and other problems [15]. Also, another in the rest of the animal kingdom is fist that are born with eyes that don't work [16] and the English Bull Dog is born with heart problems [17]. The universe is endlessly expanding into the never ending reaches and coldness of space to die out and us along with it. And even further, are galaxy the Milky Way his on a direct collision course with the Andromada galaxy which would also be the death of us [18]. With that done, I will now await my opponent's response. Thank You. Sources[1]. http://en.wikiquote.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://www.csmonitor.com... [6] . http://www.newser.com... [7] . http://skyserver.sdss.org... [8] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] . http://truthisscary.com... [10] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [11] . http://liberatedmind.com... [12] . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [13] . http://www.botany.wisc.edu... [14] . http://www.lbl.gov... [15] . http://www.altmd.com... [16] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [17] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [18] . http://www.nasa.gov...