God more likely than not exists

"God's existance can be proven, or at least is the most reasonable explanation." I disagree. I propose that neither is the case. God's existence can NEVER be proven, and in terms of logic/reasoning, or any evidence whatsoever, the conclusion that an intelligent, rational, intervening supernatural being is unsound. "as a note though, i am not saying proven in terms of deductive fact. i'm using it in terms of proponderance of evidence, more likely than not, in a court of law." That's fine. I will allow this because it doesn't matter in the long run. "(proof is known to have double meaning. it can mean evidence or conclusive proof. i'm using it in the former sense." This, I will not allow. A proof must be both sound and valid. It need not be conclusive, I will grant you that half, but it can't just be one or two pieces of "evidence". The evidence must be overwhelming, and the evidence must be valid. "theists are known for being signled out for this phenomenon (miracles converting after nderf.org prohpests etc) over atheists etc." That's because when the only tool you own is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. A theist and a scientist looking at the same thing will think differently. The thing is, the scientist will be the one to do the legwork in finding an answerwhile the theist stands dumbfounded and attributes everything to God. "you're right that there could be explanations other than an intelligence that is causing all this (you could even insist if a wonder worker in fact came and started doing miracles in the name of God that there might be another explantion, analogous to a degree to show the obstenance of your position given that this stuff happens to theists) if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that." Fallacious argument. There are many other valid conclusions that can follow. One of which would develop from the premise that theists see what they want to see --> therefore, miracles wouldn't be categorized by scientists. in other words, what a theist would call a miracle, a scientist could explain in another way. "the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them. if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation. atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption." I hope you know that this collection of words is a completely incoherent pile of non-sequitors. I haven't seen such a logically fallacious block of text for a LONG time. I'll have to break it down a line at a time just to make it easier for my brain. "the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them." You cite no evidence. And you use the word presumption, but don't state any presumption. Presumptions don't really work in debate. I don't like uncertainties as premises. Please clarify the evidence and presumption. "if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation. atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption." I honestly have no idea what this means. Please devote at LEAST half your next reply to this part of your argument alone because to me, it is completely nonsensical. I must emphasize however, that you are trying to convince me of the existence of something I do not believe in. Thus, I am NOT obligated to DISPROVE God, you are obligated to PROVE god. This is called "the burden of proof". If I say I have an enormous, intangible, invisible, neon-yellow elephant shrew in my room, I wouldn't ask you to prove that it DOESN'T exist. You would ask ME to prove it DOES exist. "the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and their belief is indicative of God.. so using my standard of proof, i rest my case." By "rest" do you mean "lay to rest" as we would do with a dead man? A distinguishing characteristic is not a validating one. While a belief may distinguish a particular religious faction, that's really all it does. It distinguishes them. Makes them different. It doesn't necessarily make them right. I can form a cult right now where I worship the great Fuzzywuzzball, a giant lime-green hamster god. That would distinguish me. And since my belief of the great Fuzzywuzzball is indicative of the existence of a great lime-green hamster God, by your fallacious logic, that makes me right. ******************* My opponent has boldly stated that there exists evidence for a God. Setting aside the fact that most of my opponent's argument was incomprehensible and quite possible, purposefully vague, I believe I have responded to the necessary points. Now, I will offer an explanation as to why the belief in a God is NOT the logical conclusion. First and foremost, we must concede that humans are quite self-centered, baised, and ignorant. The Greeks examined their own society and created Gods in their image. Their concepts of job specialization, nobility, and transportation enabled them to come up with the elaborate story of Apollo being charged with moving the sun across the sky daily in a golden chariot. Religions all over the world have the same characteristics. Humans borrowing from their own societies to develop a God. Simply speaking, the god of the penguins is a penguin. The god of the camels is a camel. Similarly, the god of the humans is a human, with all the attributes that we humans believe to be important. Much like two Jewish boys growing up in New York City who developed the idea of "Superman", we took all the values from our society, our culture, our species and made a God. God was forged in our image. Not the other way around. Intelligence, the urge to create, love, emotion, jealousy, forgiveness, justice, good, evil, all these things are purely human and only relate to humans. These are the attributes we worship and thus, these are the attributes we bestow on God. Examining the universe in its totality, none of these things have any sort of significance. So why would the greatest force in the universe be even remotely concerned with them? If there is a God, it would be a nebulous force-like thing. Non-sentient, non-living. With no will, intelligence, emotions, etc. It would not interfere with human activities because in the scope of the universe, we humans are quite insignificant. To assume we were designed by a supreme being is arrogance coupled with ignorance. To assume we are loved by a supreme being is arrogance coupled with ignorance. To assume we have anything to DO with a supreme being is arrogance coupled with ignorance. And simply speaking, to assume a supreme being is also arrogance coupled with ignorance. *********************** I now invite my opponent to make the promised argument for the existence of God and that can overwhelmingly do so.