God does not exist

Once again, my opponent fails to produce any sound logic that God does not exist. In his attempt to do so, he tries to refute the clear evidence of God's existence, but fails utterly in doing so and shies away from his own original argument, hoping you the reader doesn't catch it. He begins and states:"I never said that because non-sentient causes are more powerful and more frequent that it rules out a sentient cause, I said that if it is sensical to use logic based on observation within the universe in an attempt to describe properties of a hypothetical "outside" the universe then the only logical option is to go with the non-sentient cause."We notice above that he clearly states "I never said that because non-sentient causes are more powerful and more frequent that it rules out a sentient cause,.."Now watch ladies and gentlemen, as I quote his exact words" if it is sensical, then it's only logical that the universe had a non-sentient cause, because they are more frequent in number and are more powerful".Is this debate not over? I mean, really? My opponent has been completely caught out. As we can easily see, my opponent attempted to run from his own argument, as he himself saw the flaw in it by denying his own argument. This is an utter failure and flaw in a debate. Denying your own argument is self recognition and evidence from my opponent himself that his argument does not hold up. As such, it holds as a complete flaw in logic and reasoning and the proof that God does not exist is an utter failure.As demonstrated, my opponent claimed that something can be considered the originator of something simply because it is more frequent in number, yet such reasoning is highly illogical, thus my opponent has failed to prove that God does not exist with such an argument. According to such logic, since there are more Chinese people in the world than Indians, then that would mean that the Chinese created the Indians. Any reasonable person can see the flaw in such logic. It is not impossible for one with intelligence to create many things that are unintelligent and non-sentient. There are more action figure toys than there are humans. Does that mean that the G.I.Joe with the kung-fu grip is responsible for your creation? So not only does my opponent's argument fail, but as we just witnessed, my opponent ran away and denied his own argument which is enough to show that his arguments failed, as he himself didn't feel confident enough to run with it after I presented my rebuttal. So in an effort to redeem his argument, he continues and states:"My opponent's argument basically boils down to something like: "a grenade explodes from the inside, but there was still someone there to make the grenade on the outsideThe problem is there is no evidence that the grenade (singularity) was created. The Big Bang simply states that our known universe came from the singularity, not that the singularity popped into existence. Also, every cake baker and grenade maker had a creator themselves, so if my opponent's examples are valid, then who created the creator? To avoid infinite regress, not inferring a creator when a theory works without it is the only logical option."He states that there is no evidence that the singularity was created and that to state that something or someone created the singularity is illogical because the Big Bang is logical enough to prove how the universe came about. Yet the problem is that the Big Bang is not logical in proving the creation of the universe because it states that the singularity has no intelligence, and as proven, unintelligence cannot originate a repeated pattern. How do we know this? By simply testing an unintelligent subject or a subject that lacks intelligence and as demonstrated, neither a dead body, or a new born can create a repeating pattern due to its inability to learn and comprehend. In other words, their inability to do so is due to a lack of intelligence, or no intelligence. So since a lack of intelligence and no intelligence cannot create a repeating pattern in the tested subjects, then it can be concluded that the singularity did not originate the repeating patterns in the universe because it has no intelligence as well. Since it has no intelligence, this means that these patterns were also not created by chance. For as demonstrated, chance cannot originate a repeating pattern or order, but rather, can only be responsible for disorder. Again, how do we know this? As demonstrated, if one throws a bucket of paint on the wall in an attempt to draw a human face without using intelligence, decision making and judgment to align the paint, the result will not be a human face, but a complete mess and disorder from even looking like a human face.As demonstrated from three test subjects, the act of chance and unintelligence cannot originate a repeating pattern or order, but rather, it can only create disorder, thus proving that the order and patterns in the universe did not originate from the singularity because the singularity has no intelligence. My opponent has not contested this to show that a new born or a dead body can create a repeating pattern or that a human face painting can be created by chance. Thus his inability to do so in my examples support the fact that intelligence originated the intelligence and patterns in all creation within the universe, thus proving that the universe originated from an intelligent designer, whom we call God. My opponent's arguments have all failed thus far. We continue.He then states:"We know that plants can come from things that are not plants (seeds), therefore, why can't intelligence originate from something that is non intelligent? It seems my opponent is creating standards for reality which don't exist."This analogy fails. By acknowledging that a plant comes from a seed, you are admitting that the plant came from something. Yet in the case of unintelligence originating intelligence, the very definition of unintelligence is "No Intelligence". This means that intelligence comes from "nothing", not something, as in the case of an apple. Another failed argument. Furthermore, the elements of the seed is in the apple, while unintelligence cannot be within intelligence. Debunking my opponent again.Now here is where it gets interesting. Let me quote my opponent on this one:I said: "Lastly, it was demonstrated that without intelligence, creation originating by chance causes disorder"My opponent replies with:"100% chance? Sure."Here, my opponent agrees with me. Again, is this debate not over? But he wants to justify his statement, so he says:"100% random chance".This type of argument is rather desperate to say the least. A random chance? This makes no sense. The word random and chance are synonymous terms. http://freethesaurus.net...So stating that chance cannot originate a repeating pattern but random chance can is illogical when the terms mean the same thing. That's like saying "The man is not fast, he's quick". Flawed logic. My opponent's arguments continue to fail.Lastly, my opponent says that intelligence is the bi-product of the brain. So unless one has a brain, then they cannot be intelligent. Again, this type of logic fails, for as already demonstrated, unintelligence cannot originate intelligence. Therefore, the intelligence of the brain originates from intelligence and as his own analogy says regarding a seed (which is not an apple) creating an apple, such is the same in the creation of the brain where as a brain is not required to originate a brain. It is rather the ingredients that are needed, which in this case is intelligence. So my opponent's own analogy backfires to actually prove intelligent design, and when we consider that he ran from his original argument, had his own arguments dismantled, and ended by agreeing with part of my argument, not only is it clear who won the debate, but it is also rather clear and evident that God does in fact exist. Thank you and God Bless.