God definitely does not exist, and the agnostic view is wrong.

My opponent says that the definitions are not important and shouldn't be added into this debate. Although the definition isn't entirely important, I would still like to see a better source for natural, meaning everything in existence. As you attack me later in your rebuttal for stating what I believe, I attack you here for you perception of what natural means. I will admit that the second half of the definition I used was not relevant. However the first half talking about the physical world collectively is valid. Using supernatural in my sense means if a God does exist he would exist outside of the physical world including the universe and everything inside. The differing definitions are valid because with your definition God is outside of existence, while with my definition he would be outside of the universe in "heaven" or wherever else. By using your definition you are saying that God can't exist outside of existence. While that may be true, this doesn't outlaw his presence inside of existence but outside of the physical world as seen in my definition. Just because he may not exist outside of existence doesn't rule out the existence of a God all together. Also in the same definition you say that this is what he is believed to be, which is supernatural. People's beliefs don't dictate his existence or where he exists either. Furthermore, by claiming that the definition isn't relevant is true because however we define it, it doesn't change whether or not he exists. However, the definition of supernatural was a big part of his opening statement so this is why I attacked it. My opponent even states that "God may have created the material part of the universe, but that's not good enough for what God is supposed to be" I am not claiming that God is supposed to be any way, and even religious people who are claiming that God is a certain way may be wrong, however as you've said there may have been a God. Just because the God isn't as many people perceive him to be doesn't mean that no God exists. Once again however, as you've rebutted me for believing in a theory (Which I don't) this theory that God could have only created the physical world is also a "belief in a theory". This goes against your argument that a God definitely does not exist. My opponent claims that a logical contradiction out rules the need for evidence. I would like a source on that statement, unless it is something he merely believes in. Also, why does my theory that there could have been a God before the laws of physics changed, a logical contradiction, need evidence. An agnostic viewpoint says, we don't know for sure, so we can't believe in anything. If you can provide a credible source saying that evidence is no longer needed just because someone comes up with a logical alternative then I will think more about it. However, logical contradiction will always be inferior to concrete evidence. This evidence is impossible to get either proving the existence or lack of existence, and therefore we shouldn't believe or disbelieve. By making an argument that no God exists is not backed by facts, while making the argument that a God may or may not exist needs no evidence because it is not a belief. Therefore making a logical contradiction is not enough for absolute disbelief in a God. If someone said that they don't exist, you wouldn't need evidence to prove that they do because they are standing right there. However, to disprove the existence of a God entirely, would have to fall on evidence. I agree it isn't logical to believe in God, but I also don't rule out his existence all together for it has not been disproved. I cited Big bang merely because it was the start of the universe as we know it. We don't know what was here before, and therefore, being that the laws of physics changed, there could have been a god which created the physical world or something similar. My opponent even says that he may have created the physical world, which goes against his argument. Once again, my opponent attacked me on belief. I do not believe in God, nor do I disbelieve in him. I, as my opponent has done in this debate as well, was simply giving a possible explanation as to how there could have been a God based on his definition on where this god has to exist. The only reason I mentioned this theory was because my opponent claims that it would be impossible for him to exist outside of existence. By stating that he could have existed before our universe is a logical contradiction to his statement. Also as I've mentioned before, just because the God does not fit into people's belief, does not mean that he doesn't exist at all. Claiming that a God does not exist because of people's impossible beliefs is contradictory of two of my opponents main arguments. Firstly, that God can't exist in the commonly perceived supernatural and out of existence way. And secondly that beliefs are not valid in this debate. In conclusion saying that beliefs are not valid in this debate means that my opponent can't base the fact that God doesn't exist off of people's beliefs. Just because it is commonly accepted that God may be supernatural even in my opponents definition, does not rule out his existence entirely.