Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism

1. Rebuttal"My oponent has changed his statement to: "a maximally great being must necessarily not exist solely within time." So now I have to deal with the statemet: god can be within time and be "outside" of time at the same time. marvelous."I apologize if the statement was not clear. I assumed that when I said God transcends space and time my opponent would not have any misunderstanding. To make it explicitly clear, God is not constrained to space or time. God created and transcends space and time. I'm not sure how to simplify it any more than that, but I hope my opponent is now able to understand what I mean."Conclusion: It appears to me only another imaginary all-powerful being can fight to this kind of imaginary being. The commanding officers of templars did a great job. An imaginary, all-powerful creature which exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time, created everything, yet never been created. "I'm not sure what my opponent is trying to say here. It is clear to me that my opponent does not comprehend the concept of transcending space and time. As I stated earlier, I'm not sure how I can better explain this (I think I've been pretty explicit already). God created time. So, God is not constrained by time. Rather, he transcends time itself. My opponent also brings up God creating everything but never having been created. I'm glad he is able to comprehend my first argument. He seems to imply that there is something wrong with the concept of God creating the universe but not having been created, yet presents no objection to the idea. It is necessary that our finite universe has an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause is God."Big bang? god made it (even if science prooves it happened)."Here, my opponent betrays his lack of understanding of modern science. Science tells us that 13.8 billion years ago, time and space came into existence out of nothing in an event called "The Big Bang". My opponent and I seem to agree so far. Now, what caused The Big Bang? I would say The Big Bang was caused by God; The Big Bang is the name given to the moment of creation. My opponent simply says "science prooves it happened". Science proves what happened? The Big Bang? Of course science shows The Big Bang happened, our very existence is evidence that The Big Bang happened. What science does not tell us is what caused The Big Bang, and rightly so. Science is the study of the natural world. As the natural world did not come into existence until the moment of The Big Bang, it is impossible for science to give a naturalistic explanation for the cause of The Big Bang. A naturalistic cause cannot create nature itself! Surely my opponent can recognize this. So, science doesn't "prove" anything about the cause of The Big Bang. Science wouldn't dare, because it is not the place of science to prove such things."Time? God created it."Now we're getting somewhere!"We need to work on time travel in order to sort this out."*Sigh* Perhaps we'll never get anywhere."Or make contact with alien life forms who might have a clue if they exist somewhere within the universe."My opponent spent a seemingly endless amount of time arguing about the existence of aliens in our last debate, so I'm not about to start up on this subject again. Please stick to the debate topic."noone on this planet can fight such powerful imaginary concept."I think my opponent is on to something here. It seems that he recognizes that God is the only rational explanation for the existence of our universe (time, space, etc.) The quote above shows that my opponent has no alternative explanation, even going far as to suggest that "no one on this planet" could have an alternative explanation. With that sort of conviction, I'm surprised to see that he hasn't yet renounced his atheism.2. SummaryUnfortunately, the majority of this debate has been spent by my opponent arguing about the definition of God and misinterpreting the concept of God transcending space and time. This is regrettable, as I had hoped my opponent might attempt to propose arguments in favor of his position, or at the very least produce a decent objection to one of my arguments. However, as we have seen, all three of my original arguments have gone unrefuted and are thus still standing. Furthermore, my opponent has not even hinted at the idea of putting forward any arguments in favor of atheism, which is required if he would like to win the debate. For now at least, we can conclude that there are 3 sound arguments in favor of theism and 0 sound arguments in favor of atheism.