None of the three most practicted religions' Gods exist.

Your arguments will be bracketed 4 times, [[[[like this]]]]. I don't know how to bold, so that's why. For each rebuttal you gave, I'll obviously dispute it (some I shall agree). Here goes. 1.) [[[[Sounds good, simple is better.]]]] Indeed. 2.) [[[[I disagree. Often in biblical texts, people knew Jesus was real but did not have faith in him...Even if there was as much evidence that God exists as humans exists, faith would be very important.]]]] Here's the deal. It's my mistake, I should've made it clearer. The faith that I'M talkin' about is faith that God exists, not faith that he is trustworthy. This discussion is about the existence of Allah, Trinity, or Brahma, not if we should have faith in there ideals and teachings. You are correct in saying we shall still need faith, but what I'm saying is there'd be no more need for the faith that God exists, which is very central to a religion. You definition says [[[[loyalty to a person or thing]]]]. In this case, the faith I'm talking about is loyalty to the belief (belief=thing) that God exists. So, you are entirely right here! Everyone would then need faith to claim that the God belonged to their religion. But that's irrelevant to a discussion only about the faith that he exists. Not your fault for saying that, I should've been more precise. 3.)[[[[No they wouldn't. People, particularly with strong beliefs against Christianity would think it was a ruse.]]]] Another point on which I agree on you with, although it's still more of a side topic. But it's worthy to note that people doubt the Apollo 11 moon landing happened, even the footage. One thing: you could compare a miracle with 9/11 (of course not in content), a miracle could be filmed with several hundred cams, all different angles. Yes, I know, you could still distrust it, but you'd have to admit it'd be pretty darn convincing. 4.)[[[[Yet there is no scientific proof to back that claim up...Not only that but many creation stories exclude each other.]]]] You got me. There is none. But on my side, there's no scientific proof to disapprovemy belief (coming back to this later). Again though, what we have is faith in existance, and there's a good reason why we have ONLY that. And I already said why in Round one. And yes, creation stories do contradict, in the same way science theories do about how everything came to in to being. The 3 primary religions may say differently on the details, but not the big picture: a creator. (like how scientists go with generally the Big Bang. Two ideas are completely equal in terms of contradiction, therefore that sentence was not necessary.) 5.)[[[[Perhaps there is no reason nor explanation, that it simply just is. For right now the something from nothing theory seems to be the best answer to the question... Quantum fluctuations could have started the big bang.]]]] You have been saying throughout your arguement that science has found reasons and explanations to problems/questions, and so therefore science will eventually explain how everything got here. Now you say perhaps there is no reason, other than it simply just is. Just wanted to shine light on that. Your something from nothing theory may be the best answer for you, but that's a mere preference. And now we get to the hard stuff (I admit, I needed to study up!) Quantum fluctuations, as stated by my first souce [1], are temporary changes in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Now, I don't understand this 100%, by the word "change" hit me. We can both agree that change is an effect. Therefore, with the cause/effect theory, we no that quantum flucuations require a cause. Name a cause, I choose God. I can't back it up with facts, but I'll at least name one. You? You might argue you caused God, pesented in this arguement [2], but again, we are with dealing with Allah/Trinity/Brahma. He is all-powerful and prsent, not needing a creator. 6.)[[[[There is no scientific evidence to support that view.]]]] That's fair. I should've watched my wording, but I think I've already explained why we can't and shouldn't be able to (the need of faith in God's existance.) Good catch, though! 7.)[[[[Something from nothing theory which is backed by evidence is my answer.]]]] Not backed by evidence. If it were, religion would be dropped substantially. Just the same if it were backwards, and God was proven. Some (not all, religion and science are not enemies) science theories would be dropped. And again, cause an effect. There has to be a cause behind nothing turning to something. 8.)[[[[The multiverse theory explains how the constants of the universe were created.]]]] This is only a theory, there's been no breakthroughs in finding an alternate universe, it right now a concept [3]. But it's an interesting one I might add, and I'm open to its possibility. The reason being that, okay, the multiverse theory allows gravity to work. What allows the multiverse theory to work? 9.)[[[[The same goes for other theories, there will always be some level of mystery in the universe. Which version of abiogensis is the correct version? Yet, all these versions reinforce abiogensis...Finally,...there is plenty of other faiths that could defeat your argument. For example Deism and Judaism...Since miracles are at best extremely rare, Deism seem much more likely than the three most popular religions...Jewish people reject that Jesus Christ is the son of God. As well as rejecting all other Gods except the Judaism God. If the Judaism God is the one and only true God, then no other Gods that can exist.]]]] Running out of characters, but I'll try to get it in... Yes, there will always be mystery, we agree on that. According to your arguement though, science should not allow for mystery, why'll religion has much of it (whick is okay for now. More will be revealed.) And that abigensis part is great. Even with all of your quantum fluctuations and multiverses... NONE of this contradicts the existence of an all-powerful God, capable of instituting the universe with these changes and theories. All versions of creation, even the Big Bang, strongly reinforce God. As far as other faiths, I thought we were talking about the 3 main religions. So yes, you're correct when you say Deism is more likely, but that's besides the point. We're not aiming for which God is more likely to exist, we are shooting for the existence of Allah/Trinity/Brahma. Also, Yahweh, Allah, and The Father of the Holy Trinity are the same. Different interpretations only. Christians have the Torah in their Bible. Even if that were false, and it isn't, it shouldn't and doesn't impact a debate between an atheist and an Allah/Trinity/Brahma/Yahweh believer. 10.)[[[[Conclusions, my opponent has not even dented my case. Science can explain everything my opponent mentioned as well as deism and Judaism.]]]] Well, I figured I wouldn't dent, as I'm an amateur debater and with this topic, it's extremely hard too. To be honest, you have dented... well, cracked, maybe, my arguing technique. You have not touched my arguement, though. Science cannot explain everything I've said (i.e. what created the multiverse theory, amoung others) , and that Deism/Judaism part, not to be mean, makes no sense. Please talk more about it though in round 4. On the topic of round 4, you must also complete the task that you said would win you this debate. Prove that God isn't real. I like your arguement, but you need to include that evidence without a doubt. That should be a main focus for you. 11.)[[[[Thanks for the debate.]]]] No prob, by the way, if my speech sounds disrespectful, forgive me. I've been trying hard to be chivalrous and sensible, in all seriousness. Souces: 1.) http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com... fluctuation 2.) http://www.alternet.org...'everything_has_a_cause'_is_a_terrible_justification_for_god's_existence 3.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...