Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.

Thankyou for presenting your case. You claim that God’s existence in unnecessary to explain the evidence so you can use O.R. . . . I am really confused by what you are trying to do here. “In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.” [1] It is used to help develop or choose between models that you want to test (simple is better) . It is not to help decide between theories already presented. Theories are supported by evidence. You state “The existence of God must be required and/or supported in at least ONE case in order for you to win this debate. If God exists, finding one example should be easy.”Before returning to evidence I want to review the different kinds of evidence. [2] - Experimental evidence - consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory. - Legal evidence testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.SO you are saying that any of the above types of evidence will be accepted? I will present that in round 5Let me respond to some of your claims.Appendix - I have proved it serves a function after you claimed it served no function. You need to accept this gracefully rather than say “The appendix certainly doesn't fulfill ALL of its possible functions in humans, so it is still an example of a vestigial trait.” You said it had no function, and now say it doesn’t serve all it’s possible functions as though it were a Swiss army knife with many functions. One function is enough to prove your assertion wrong.Non-Coding DNA - This also serves a function. I also dispute that it can be removed (en masse) with no effect to the organism. I even dispute you could design and accomplish an experiment to test this claim.Nipples - You claim “Men have nipples. Nipples serve no function in male mammals” That is not exactly true. - They are quite sensitive, and serve the function of an erogenous zone for sexual stimulation. The fact that God’s first command in Genesis 1 is for people to have sex shows the importance He places on our pleasure and reproduction. God is good & sex is fun.Presumptions - you make many presumptions about God. I don’t believe in the God you portray either.When you say “Either God exists and shares our sense of aesthetic appeal, or he doesn't exist and this is a by-product of random, unguided mutation and selection.” Why would you presume that God shares our sense of aesthetic appeal. Why would you presume that “random, unguided mutation and selection” was not designed into the system by God?On debates and the BOPYou state “That is my position, no matter how weak you may consider it. The existence of God must be required and/or supported in at least ONE case in order for you to win this debate.” - this is incorrect.The way you set up the debate gives you the BOP. I simply need to refute your points.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...