All humans ought to assume that the Christian God does not exist, based on lack of evidence.

Okay, now it's time for some rebuttals.First, though, to clarify: When I mentioned the burden of proof, I meant that, in a debate for the existence for the Christian God, the burden of proof would lie on the side of the person arguing for the existence of the Christian God. My opponent realized this, so I see no need to go any deeper into that aspect. Which is not to diminish the importance of the need for Christians to prove their God, of course.Rebuttals:-Con claims that the Big Bang theory cannot be taken as fact, because there is no way to prove that the Big Bang is the reason for the existence of the universe. It is true that there is no "Big Bang Law". However, there is Hubble's Law, which states that there is a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift (1). This scientific LAW implies that universal expansion is taking place, and even describes exactly how this expansion takes place, supporting the Big Bang theory very well. Naturally, Con could easily claim God's responsibility for the Big Bang. In any case, evidence for a god, specifically the Christian God, is still needed, and my stance is not weakened. Hence the "burden of proof" I mentioned earlier.-Con claims that, based on my logic, the Big Bang theory cannot be accepted as valid. Is this really the case? It cannot be. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and backed up with scientific evidence- I already mentioned Hubble's law. Con asserts that the Big Bang theory "contradicts the teachings of several religions". As Con has not mentioned which religions the Big Bang theory supposedly contradicts, I cannot rebut this claim fully. However, the definition of "religion" is as follows:"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." (2)Once again, for religions to be accepted as scientific fact, there must be scientific evidence for what they teach. Religions require scientific proof for the existence of each's "superhuman controlling power" or powers to be accepted as valid by science. As the Big Bang theory seeks to explain the formation of the universe through expansion of a singularity, there must be evidence of universal expansion for the theory to be supported. Which there is. For the Christian creationist standpoint to be supported, because of the Christian creationist's standpoint's reliance on the existence of God, the existence of God must be supported. There is no scientific evidence of the existence of God; therefore, the Big Bang theory is supported by science, and the Christian creation is not. I mentioned "lack of evidence" in the title. Scientific theories ARE supported by scientific evidence; they merely cannot be used to predict outcomes with certainty. The difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is that a law can be used to predict outcomes with certainty. Just as Hubble's Law can.To actually even stand against scientific theories such as the Big Bang, religious versions of creation require scientific evidence for the existence of their creator beings. The singularity theory is supported by evidence (which is why it is a scientific theory), and the Christian creation is not, simply because there is no scientific evidence for a God. Con does not seem to have yet disputed the lack of evidence.The validity of the Christian creation always depends on the existence of a God. God could have logically caused the Big Bang, could he not? How is the observer to know how the Big Bang happened, in the case of God causing it, without proof of God in the first place?My argument does not negate the title, as is seen.-Con asserts that my point about Christianity not being valid because of its contradiction by all other religions does not mean that Christianity is not a valid belief. My point was meant to be taken in the current context, with all religions lacking scientific evidence for themselves. When various proposals with no evidence to back them up are argued over, how is a person logically justified in choosing any one proposal to put their faith in? I mentioned in earlier arguments the need for Christians to prove themselves right over all other religions, and, if an omnipotent being is proven to be real, the need for Christians to prove that being is the Christian God. As there is no scientific proof for any superhuman controlling being, belief in any religion is not logically justified. The burden of proof is still on Christians to prove the existence of their deity. Known scientific fact is the starting point, so to speak; to justify belief in a divine, all-powerful entity, "existence in a divine, all-powerful entity" must join the realm of "scientific fact", because, as I mentioned before, science is composed of observations that support other observations, and such observations are the best ones that humans have.The starting point, science, based on proven observation, is the entity to be added to. Science is merely observation of the natural and physical world.Science is the evidence all humans ought to base their beliefs on. This includes beliefs in deities. Any theist treats their deity as a scientific fact, as an observation supported by evidence.The problem occus when that observation is not actually supported by any evidence.Now over to Con.1. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...2. Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English