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

Thanks for accepting, Con. Both scientific observation and Christianity attempt to explain the physical and natural world. Christianity assumes that the direct reason things exist in the first place is an omnipotent being, God. The most widely accepted theory of the universe among astrophysicists is that of the Big Bang theory, rather than that of Christian creation (1). A being capable of doing whatever it wants at any given time (omnipotent), if proven to exist, would render any existing scientific theories and evidence for things such as creation refutable, as whatever an omnipotent being wills to exist must come to exist (2). Christianity is not the only religion in the world. In proving itself to be correct, Christianity would prove all other religions, including those that believe in the existence of omnipotent beings, wrong. The burden of proof, therefore, rests not only on those who believe in the existence of the omnipotence of a being, but also on the specific group of theists known as Christians, who believe in the existence of the omnipotent being described in the Bible, the Christian holy book. Science the study of the natural and physical world (3). Any religion is a standpoint on the aspects of the physical and natural world, as religions believe certain things to exist. Thus, as humans are the ones to whom scientific study and religion are of interest, and because humans have a limited ability to observe the physical and natural world, humans are forced to base their beliefs on limited observation. If there were complete certainty of the existence of an omnipotent being (SPECIFICALLY the Christian God), this debate would not be taking place. If there were complete certainty of the non-existence of an omnipotent being (SPECIFICALLY the Christian God), this debate would not be taking place. Scientific laws are backed up by scientific observation, and have always been able to predict outcomes with certainty (4). As scientific laws have always proven useful, we must conclude that science, to an extent, is useful. BASED ON THE LIMITED OBSERVATIONS OF HUMANS, FACTS WHICH DO NOT CONTRADICT OTHER FACTS MUST BE ACCEPTED AS VALID, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS, BECAUSE ALL THAT HUMANS CLAIM TO BE KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON LIMITED OBSERVATION. Christianity contradicts every other religion, thus Christianity cannot yet be accepted as valid. The burden of proof rests on Christians in this case. The concept of an omnipotent being is not yet validated by any current observation of the natural world which has always proven to be useful or does not contradict other observations to which the usefulness applies. The burden of proof rests not only on Christians, but those who believe in the existence of an omnipotent being. In any case, belief in the Christian God is not valid until the Christian God is not scientifically proven to exist, because science is based on observation that is proven to be useful. To sum my argument up: -Prove that there is an omnipotent being, -And prove that this being is the Christian God, -All scientifically, And humans will have valid cause to be believe in the Christian God. As this proof has not yet been presented on either count, of Christianity or omnipotence, humans should put their faith in that which has always proven to be useful in the past- that which is the most valid of human knowledge- that which is evidenced by observation of the natural world- science. Humans should believe as they discover, and treat that which rejects currents observations as false until it is assimilated into observations that support others and are useful. I thank my opponent once again, and hand this debate over to them. 1. http://burro.astr.cwru.edu... 2. Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English 3. Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English 4. http://education-portal.com...