God does not exist.

I will begin by addressing his arguments. P1: A God who created the first state of time cannot exist. My opponent tries to make this point through the A-theory of time, and the theory of general relativity. However, despite this argument being very eloquent and my lack of knowledge on the subject, this point is irrelevant. This may be a huge letdown to my opponent, who no doubt spent much time presenting his case. However, in debate, we must debate the resolution. I will address why this point is irrelevant in C1. P2: An omnipotent cause of the universe is improbable. I think this argument is rather amusing. Essentially, what my opponent is trying to say is that "If an omnipotent God exists, then there's a 100% chance he created Earth. However, if not, there's a 95% chance that it came into existence on its own (which I'll address in the next point's rebuttal). " Then he states that, since we can't prove God's existence, we have to assume that the 95% chance of success took place. I will concede that, if there was a 95% chance of the world being created on it's own somehow (without God), then it would be less likely that God created mankind. However, I don't concede the 95% probability of the world's spontaneous coming into being. Nor do I concede that this alone would prove my opponent's case. P3: Origin of matter can be explained through simultaneous causation. Now, here is the only argument of my opponent's which really must be debated. Can the origin of matter be explained through simultaneous causation? The answer is a no. This idea, which has no scientific observation to back it, is a mere hypothesis. Matter could have caused other matter, which could have caused other matter, which could have caused itself. The reason this argument seems illogical is the very reason it is! There has never been anything in history that would lead us to assume that something bound by science could not have a cause. While this is a pretty theory, it ends up making no sense. There is no evidence to support that something could cause itself. Can my opponent provide an example of something not needing a cause? I would be incredibly impressed if he could! So we see, at the end of these short, concise, but sensible rebuttals, my opponent sounds very knowledgable (I'm sure he is), but his arguments are logically flawed. Because. .. P1: Is irrelevant, as will be shown in C1P2: Relies on P3P3: Is logically and scientifically unsoundMoving on to my points as Con. C1: The God we are debating is omnipotent, as defined by ProThe definition of God, as given to us by Pro in R1, defines God as the omnipotent cause of time (amongst other things). First, a brief look at the definition of omnipotent. Omnipotent- having virtually unlimited authority or influence. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...So, we see that God is unlimited in his command of the universe. Correct? This means that God created the same theories and such that my opponent is trying to trap Him with. God, being omnipotent, can choose to exist outside of time and scientific law. Therefore, God could've created the first state of time and time as defined by the A-theory. The problem isn't so much my opponent's reasoning, but rather the God that he is trying to disprove with it. C2: The KCAYes, yes. I know. The KCA is an old logical argument that calls for the need for a creator. However, it is logically sound, and applies (considering that P3 has been shown to be false). The KCA, or Kalam Cosmological Argument, is as follows: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence. Simple enough, right? This argument alone shows the need for God. Unless my opponent can show this argument doesn't stand (as he has already attempted, yet failed, to do so), then he may have a case. Until then, we must assume that God probably exists. C3: My opponent's arguments don't account for life or the complexity of lifeMy opponent, with his P2 and P3, tried to show that God isn't absolutely necessary for creation. This isn't true, as I've shown. However, even if it was, my opponent still hasn't accounted for countless questions that would be left unanswered. These are questions such as. .. How did the universe form? How did Earth form? Why did Earth appear as a prime habitat for life? How did life begin? How did life become complex? How did humans gain sentience? These are some of many problems my opponent would have to address. His arguments, if they were true, would only show that God might not be necessary for creation of matter. Yet he fails to account for everything else. If P2 and P3 are still true, and God is the less likely belief for the origin of matter, He is still required for the answer to all of the questions I raised above. Therefore, He probably exists. To recap:C1: The fact that God is omnipotent excuses Him from the laws He created. C2: The KCA shows need for God's existence. C3: Even if God wasn't needed for the origin of matter, He would be the more probable explanation for things like life/the complexity of life. I eagerly look forward to my opponent's responses.