God Most Likely Does Not Exist

This round will be mostly dedicated to rebuttalls, videos are linked at the end: “1. Unicorns didn't create the universe. 2. What do unicorns have to do with the resolution? “ The unicorn example demonstrates that asking for absolute proof of non-existence of ANY being is a ridiculous question to begin with.The default position should be disbelief until proof is presented FOR the existence of the being in question. I have yet to find any compelling or reasonable proof/arguments/evidence for God, therefore I do not believe in the existence of God. “I have a belief that the King James Version of the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, approximately 2000 years ago to die on the cross for man's sin, that He died, was buried, and rose again after three days to give salvation to mankind.” The idea of vicarious redemption is an evil and immoral preaching of Christianity, as it places all of the punishments from ones sins on somebody else. One must accept the consequences of their actions in all cases, putting it on a mythical man who nobody can prove is the son of God is not only ridiculous but outright immoral. If this teaching was true then I could rape whoever I want then ask Jesus for forgiveness and be ready to do it all over again. This example may seem farfetched but it seems to be statistically prevalent among priests (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The Christian belief regarding how God deals with sin is rather silly, unreasonable, and ineffective. In a nutshell God sacrifices himself to himself in order to create a loophole in a law he wrote to forgive the sins of those he created as sinners. This type of thinking teaches people a false sense moral accountability. People must accept the consequences of their own actions to progress their moral character. “If that is true, then how can you explain this atheist turning into a theist?“ Allow me to clarify the quote you are responding to: “Most people* will stick to the beliefs given to them at the very early stages of their lives…” There have been many theists that turn into atheists as well, one example is Professor Bart Ehrman. He is a distinguished religious scholar and has written many good pieces showing why historical evidence for Jesus and his alleged miracles are so lacking. “Atheists are glad to announce and proclaim that the Big Bang is the creator of the universe. However no person can actually provide any proof of this claim…” Perhaps no absolute proof can be given that the big bang is the one and only cause of our universe however all our evidence points the fact that it is. This is the great difference between your position and mine. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts the big bang as a well-tested and sound theory with a large quantity of data to support it. This evidence comes mostly from modern cosmology. Listed below are the various categories of evidence which support the big bang model of our universe [talkorigins.org]: 1) Large-Scale Homogeneity 2) Hubble Diagram 3) Abundances of Light Elements 4) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation 5) Fluctuations in the CMBR 6) Large-scale structure of the universe 7) Age of stars 8) Evolution of galaxies 9) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves 10) Tolman tests 11) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect 12) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect “You list some possibilities after this. So we must keep our possibilites open, but we can't believe in a God? I would rather believe in a God that has a purpose for a universe than believe I am the mistake of a singularity imploding/exploding creating everything we see today.” If you read the possibilities, I explain that a God is indeed possible however it is unlikely according to Ockham’s razor. The real problem with postulating God as an explanation for everything, is that it doesn’t actually answer anything. Postulating God makes the problem even more complicated as we must now consider how did this God come into being, and how this infinitely complicated being carries out his actions. The universe operates perfectly well without the God assumption. Our understanding of this universe will only increase when we find real explanations for phenomenon rather than scapegoating on the laziest and most useless possible explanation, namely God. “And that's science? It sounds more like science fiction. There is no evidence to support the Big Bang Theory...” Everything I have listed has a physical data to support its scientific basis; if it sounds like science fiction to you then you are ignorant of modern and relevant scientific discoveries. You are the first individual I have ever come across to ever state that there is no evidence to support the Big Bang theory. Regardless, I listed the evidence above I do not see how you can refute it unless you believe that all scientists have a giant conspiracy to undermine religious doctrines (this argument doesn’t work either). The Big Bang model follows the laws of entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics perfectly without quarrel. Our galaxy will collide with the Andromeda Galaxy about 4 billion years from now and you say that the universe was designed this way? What a loving designer. “Two problems with that. evolution has not been observed in the known universe. We do not see transitional forms within the fossil record, but rather fully formed animals with no evidence of transition.”The Evidence for Evolution is Overwhelming:Evolution is a scientific theory as it passes all of the criterion for one, Creationism does not pass any. It is common knowledge that the genetic composition of a population does indeed change with each generation for pretty much every species. Creationism, and creation science in general has quite a lot of negative hearsay and is not accepted by the scientific community because it has absolutely no compelling evidence. Below is a very short list of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports evolution: 1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.2. Fossil evidence - The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.3. Genetic evidence4. Molecular evidence5. Evidence from proteins6. Vestigial and atavistic organs7. Embryology8. Biogeography9. Homology10. Bacteriology, virology, and immunologyThis list can go on well into the hundreds but I do have a character limit to uphold. As I have demonstrated, evolutionary theory has heavy evidential artillery on it's side, while Creationism has nothing but bare assertions. I must also point out that every organism is a transitional form because all species evolve so gradually. This means that one organism is not distinguishable from it's previous generation however after perhaps hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of years the new organism will be profoundly different from it's ancestors and so it may be called a new species. This is comparable to the gradual development of languages. Latin used to be a very popular language, then after hundreds of years new and seperate dialects of latin developed until eventually they were distinguishable from each other. Two of these are now known today to be Spanish and English, but it would be absurd to go through any one year in it's development and say that this year is the exact time when spanish was created. Rather all of the spanish language and it's subsequent dialects are the results of gradual transitions from one language to another, as all organisms in a species are transitional forms from one species to another. "Could God create an unliftable rock? Yes. What's wrong with that?"This question shows the logical impossibility of an omnipotent being. If God created an unliftable rock, then he cannot lift it. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent or all powerful. Hope you understand why I posed this question now."The very concept of God is unexplainable. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, a trinity, three persons in one. We cannot comprehend that concept."I can comprehend that it is logically incosistent. If you cannot comprehend the very concept of God, then how could you even argue that this God exists?"In short, we are equivalent in faith."We are definately not equivalent in faith. I do not hold any beliefs that are not based on evidence, and reason. You hold up faith as if it is a virtue to be proud of when in fact it should be what we all aim to avoid. Faith is the excuse people give when they have no good reason to believe something. Faith is an extension of gullibility, and if one accepts faith as a virtue to be tolerant of, then this person will have a very hard time differentiating between true and false beliefs."I ask the question: How could that evolve without a designer?"Abiogenesis, along with evolution through natural selection. Please note that natural selection is not a theory which lets molecules arrange themselves by chance, rather it is a funneling mechanism in nature that only allows functioning molecules to survive.Since you linked youtube videos, I will do the same:http://youtu.be...http://youtu.be...http://youtu.be...