God Is Not Real

My opponent states that "the cause of the existence of the universe is The Big Bang." The problem here is that my opponent doesn't understand what the Big Bang is. The standard Big Bang model actually supports the fact that the Universe had a beginning. But the cause of the Big Bang still has to be eternal, omnipresent, and etc...Basically, God (as my opponent defined in Round one) meets the requirements to be that cause. Then my opponent states that "the Bible states that God has always existed, so he never began to exist, which means he needs no creator. The problem with this argument is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports this claim and using Bible verses to prove that God has always existed is ridiculous." The main thing here is that my opponent asked me in Round two to prove the Christian interpretation of God. And that God is by definition eternal. So technically, I don't have to prove that the Christian God is eternal. That said, I did end up proving that the cause of the Universe had to transcend time since it created time. In other words, the cause of the Universe is in fact eternal. So if we go back to round two we see that my argument shows that the cause is eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, creative, personal, moral, and etc...And these attributes perfectly match the ones the Christian God has. While this could be used to argue for other Gods, that is why the second argument about Jesus was presented. My opponent then says "that without a God, morality is subjective. Assuming a God does not exist, morals are a societal construct, or a set of ideas that most people agree on. The ideas are not bad ideas, but they are designed by humans." That is quite true. You have to deny the existence of objectively (meaningful) morality if you deny the existence of God. But it is also quite clear that an objective moral law does exist. For example, everyone knows that murder, stealing, etc...are wrong. In other words, we are all aware that a moral standard exists. For example, when someone trips you as you walk on a train, you get angry since they have done something wrong. The point is that we all know the basic moral principles. Here is a video that restates what I just said: https://www.google.com... I usually use the moral argument in these debates but I decided to mix things up this time. My opponent then points out that "claiming to be an all-powerful, omnipotent being, and actually being an all-powerful, omnipotent being are very different things." The problem here is that my opponent didn't address my point. His brothers (originally not believers), friends, and people that knew him said that he was God. This is significant. Then it is said that "it is possible to be wrong, without being a madman, and it is possible to lie, without being an evil person." I completely disagree. You can't be a good teacher and literally insane at the same time. The historian named Josephus called Jesus a good teacher and there is no way you can be a good teacher and be insane at the same time. As for lying, you cannot lie and then say that you aren't evil. Anyone who has ever done something wrong is bad/evil (to different degrees). We are kind of like fruit, when we do something wrong, we bruise and are no longer perfectly good. As for homosexuality, my opponent claimed that people were born gay. Now it seems that he has retracted that claim and has instead said that "even though the 'gay gene' has not been found yet, in a study of 409 pairs of gay brothers, it was found that every test subject shared the same five SNPs." Basically, nothing has been proven. That said, even if there was a gay gene, this wouldn't mean that people were forced to be Gay. There are also genes that cause people to be overweight but this isn't an excuse to not take care of their bodies. Then my opponent uses an emotional argument which goes as follows: "there were approximately 3 million Polish Christians executed in Nazi concentration camps. These Christians could have prayed to God all day, but their deaths were part of God's plan, and the prayers did not affect anything." The problem here is that my opponent is asserting a lot here. Prayer is the act of talking to God. I don't see why the camps would prevent them from doing that. That said, I am guessing my opponent means that no matter how much those specific people might have prayed for survival ended up dying anyway. This is not God's fault but it is the fault of the Nazis. So instead of blaming the creator, blame the bad people who make bad choices. The Christian God promises his followers eternal life which will make any suffering on earth look like nothing. Though...this is off topic since it has nothing to do with proving God's existence. Then evolution was brought up again by my opponent. I understand that he believes in the process of evolution but this debate isn't supposed to be about evolution. Like I have already said, evolution is only a fact if we are talking about adaption. But common ancestry is not a fact and my opponent hasn't even tried to show any evidence supporting that type of evolution. I have already admitted that evolution is incompatible with Christianity so my opponent doesn't have to keep asserting that. That said, the Bible makes no claim on the age of the earth so his claim about the Bible saying that the earth is 6,000 yrs old is just plain wrong. But again, none of this is relevant to the topic at hand. As for scientific theories, I understand the scientific definition of a theory. When you define a theory in that way, then theories can become facts. But evolution is only correct at a very basic level. Then my opponent claims that the evolution of E. coli bacteria has been observed. Again, the bacteria was adapting in these tests. E coli did grow big after mutations and it did exchange genetic material. But the e coli never became anything other than e coli. So this wouldn't count as macro-evolution (the type some Christians have issue with). Basically, the experiments showed the bacteria adapting but nothing about what happened was game changing. The bare assertions at the end were quickly responded to. Again, cosmology supports the existence of God, the gospels are proof of the miracles Jesus did, and the evidence for God is plenty but this debate is not big enough to address all of these issues. My understanding was that this debate was solely about the Christian God's existence. I presented two arguments in round two and they have not exactly been responded to. A little was said about the cause being the Big Bang but that statement was refuted in this round. This debate has turned into a Christian answering question after question about different topics such as God's existence, evolution, homosexuality, suffering, and etc...I don't actually mind this, but I just wanted to point out that most of what my opponent writes is not quite on topic.