There is No God

I'd also like to mention that Richard Dawkins, a brilliant evolutionary biologist, has disproved many of the arguments you have stated. That is why I will mention a lot of his arguments as rebuttals. You mentioned that I've already conceded the debate because I claimed that there is no god, but there will always be a possibility that a god exists. Technically, there's a probability to some degree that anything claimed by humans to exist either exists, or doesn't. There's a chance the mermaids, dragons, or sea monsters exist. Since gravity is a theory, maybe it doesn't exist, maybe we're all being held down by a system of invisible ropes. No matter how crazy something sounds, there's always a possibility that it's true. But when a probability is so low that it's almost certainly not true, has no evidence, and overwhelming evidence against it, then it's logical to say it doesn't exist. You mentioned that an extremely complex universe is evidence of god. What doesn't sink in with a lot of people is that the earth and universe didn't happen overnight. It took billions of years for everything in the universe to form, and it still is forming. There wasn't a "first state," the matter in the universe always existed. There is a theory that one atom or partial atom always existed which the big bang happened upon, or the different types of matter in the universe always existed, which the big bang happened upon. 'God is the hypothesis of the simplest kind of person with the power and knowledge to bring about the universe. ' William Lane Craig, in his infamous, "The Kalaam Version of the Cosmological Argument," illustrated that it is impossible for an actual infinite to exist. How could a god be simple? To be all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and with the ability to create the universe, (which goes against the law of conservation anyway) among other things, a god would have to be extremely complex. Even more complex than the universe. I doubt that "The Kalaam Version of the Cosmological Argument" is true, but even if it was, then it would disprove god because a god would be too complex to have just poofed up out of nowhere. The Argument From Design is a favorite creationist argument. What creationists fail to see, is that it actually disproves god. There are many analogies of it, including the Watchmaker argument (disproved in Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker) and the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument. In the Dawkins' book The God Delusion, he proves that God is the Ultimate Boeing 747. No matter how improbable evolution or abiogenesis is, God is billions of times less probable to have formed from nothing, than life forming on a planet. It is also a lot more probable than you think for life to form, because there a quadrillions of planets in the universe and we may be the only planet, or one of the few planets, that has life. It is unclear what you are referring to with the fine tuning argument. I assume you're referring to the 'fine tuning' of the human body and earth, or you may be referring to coincidences in nature. I'll refute them both. The 'fine tunings' of the human body are products of evolution. But the human body isn't as amazing as the intelligent design argument claims it to be. There are many flaws including the vulnerability to disease and injury, among other things. You go through many routines each day and many things needed to be invented because if the flaws in the human body. Some examples are brushing your teeth, flossing, bathing, shaving, haircuts, medicine, surgery, exercise, and the large amount of food and sleep the body needs. If the 'design' of the human body is so great, then why do we need al the things I mentioned? Flaws of the earth include natural disasters, harmful rays from the sun, uninhabitable zones, polar shifts, ice ages, imperfect time measurement, (the need for leap years) among other things. There is a word for the rock formation you described, it's called a COINCIDENCE. Also Dawkins explains in The God Delusion how the mind can construct an altered image opposed to the actual thing the eyes are seeing. Optical illusions are a great example of this. Another example, is people thinking they saw the face of the devil in the World Trade Center Explosion. A few jagged edges in a rock formation may trick the mind into thinking it says "Matt Conniry is gorgeous. " I haven't even heard of these examples in nature before, and I see no reason why a God would write random statements on rocks. 'If the strength of the initial expansion of the big bang was different by as little has 1 part in 10^60 (from "The Accidental Universe"), the universe would have simply collapsed back or expanded too rapidly for a sustainable universe. ' It happened to turn out in our favor, what else can I say? Your other statements about how this could affect life, or how that could affect life, actually don't prove a creator at all, those statements only describe life as we know it. If the nuclear force or gravity varied, then life could have evolved differently. 'Moreover, science cannot explain why there are such general laws and no such wider law can explain their operation. Such an ordered universe can be explained via the God hypothesis. ' Science keeps discovering more and more things about the universe, we probably will one day discover the reason for the laws in the universe. If a god existed, due to it's needed extreme complexity, there would be evidence of it. Yet, in the 200,000 years mankind has existed, no evidence that a god has ever existed has been found. And the laws don't keep a generous amount of order in the universe that one would think would come from a god. What about black holes and asteroids that could wipe out earth at any time? 'if I witnessed the murder of a man, and you did not, does your testimony really rebut my own? ' Murder is an action, god is a being. (assuming a god exists) Let's switch the analogy with the murderer instead of the murder. if I witnessed a murderer, and you did not, does your testimony really rebut my own? If this murderer wanted people to believe in him, what he show himself or leave behind evidence? Logically, yes. If many humans searched for this murderer for thousand of years, would they find him? Almost certainly. And now, to refute your analogy: Is this murderer immortal? That is impossible, so the murderer does not exist. Also, your original analogy does not make sense because you have not seen the murder (god) either. 'If I experienced God but God does not exist, there is a contradiction. ' You have never experienced god, so there is no contradiction. Your statistics do not prove that a god exists simply because the majority of people think a god exists. Before Galileo's time, the majority of the earth's population believed that the earth is flat. But if you want statistics, here: Sweden, one of the most advanced and peaceful countries in the world, with a higher HDI than the U. S. , is over 80% atheist. The number of atheist youths have increased in the U. S. from 10%, to 40%. Dawkin's gives a great explanation for the origin of morality. When humans started living in tribes, they discovered that helping the other members of the tribe made them a stronger tribe, and more likely to survive. Also, when meeting another tribe, they discovered that if they were more friendly, the tribe would like them better. These instincts were passed down throughout the following generations. It is also common sense that people don't want to be killed or stolen from, so a government was created. Conclusion Since there is no evidence that a god has ever existed, and a god is extremely improbably and almost entirely impossible, it is logical to say that there is no god.