God does not exist

Refuting My Opponent's ObjectionsUnfortunately, my opponent's breakdown of my arguments do not represent the points I was trying to get across. 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. My opponent forgets that my argument involves two options, he is taking each option like it's it's own argument and trying to refute it, meaning he is straw manning my stance."What my opponent is saying is that because one has more than the other, then one must be the creator of the other. 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." Not exactly...This comment shows a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty.A real example would be if someone said "A leaf was blown, was it due to a non-sentient cause or sentient cause?". This is a real example, because we don't know the answer yet therefore it's all up to speculation. Since more leafs are blown due to wind than leaf blowers, and wind is more powerful than leaf blowers, then it's only logical to assume that if a random leaf was blown, it was most likely due to a non-sentient cause.Since my opponent's example had nothing to do with what I was actually saying, it can be dismissed."Saying something is the originator of another because there is more of them is highly illogical"Frequency was just one property of my argument, power and complexity were the other two. What's highly illogical is thinking sentience was the cause of the universe when sentience has shown to be the least frequent, least powerful, and least complex. If the universe requires a cause, it requires the most probable, most powerful, and complex cause."For starters, the argument that something is the creator of another simply because it is more in existence has been utterly disproven as demonstrated above"Frequency was just one part of the argument, power and complexity were the other. This means, my opponent can't even engage in an intellectually enlightening debate because he is too caught up in straw man arguments. I was expecting much more from my opponent.Regarding the internal cause 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 outside"The 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.Intelligence coming from non-intelligence "I presented that the very definition of unintelligence proves that it cannot originate intelligence because unintelligence means no intelligence."Unintelligent = Non-intelligentAll non-intelligence is, is anything without intelligence. So all non-plant would mean is anything that's not a plant. 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."You cannot give away something that you yourself don't have. This is simple common sense."All the atoms in your brain that make the mechanisms possible for intelligence to be experienced, existed long before Natural Selection took it's course and brains started forming in organisms. Nature had all the ingredients for intelligence to be formed before intelligence existed. Therefore, the above comment can be dismissed."Yet at no time have I ever stated "something that is not intelligent is something that is not intelligent, therefore, cannot originate something intelligent". Nor can my opponent quote and prove otherwise."Not in those exact words, but pretty close. My opponent said:"Thus by definition, unintelligence cannot have originated intelligence because by definition, it is unintelligent. "The stance above is obvsioulsy makes no sense, because something that is unX can originate x (like I showed with my plant example).According to my opponent's logic, the ingredients for apple juice could not come from a tree because a tree is non-apple juice.Of course my opponent's logic is flawed to the max. Therefore, we can dismiss his "X can't come from nonX" argument right off the bat.Non-intelligence and patterns that repeat "For all three elements (gravity, the contents in the ground, and Microscopic supercooled cloud prop) are all creations themselves"Of course the huge problem with this line of thinking is the assertion of a sentient creation. How do we know that things can be non-intelligently created instead of jumping to sentient creations? Well, gravity can "create" a planet all by itself. So lets say that I granted that these elements needed for flowers and snow flakes were created, my opponent still never argued for sentient creation.Since I showed that the "X cannot come from non-X" argument from my opponent was not logical, then my opponent's refutations can be dismissed. Creation by chance causes disorder"Lastly, it was demonstrated that without intelligence, creation originating by chance causes disorder"100% chance? Sure. However, my opponent is assuming there are only two options:1) 100% random chance2) IntelligenceThe problem is we know that Natural Selection [1] is a mechanism which is non-random and shows 0 signs of intelligence. Gravity isn't intelligent, but it's not completely random either (it clumps matter together, it doesn't do random things that are unexpected).My opponent's assumptions that there can only be 100% chance or intelligence are flawed.Additional Argument Against God P1: Intelligence is a bi-product of a functioning brainP2: Brains did not exist until after the universe was createdP3: Intelligence could not be responsible for the universe's inceptionIf I poke someone's biological eye out, they won't be able to see. If I rip someone's ear drum out, they won't be able to hear, but I'm supposed to believe that if I ripped someone's brain out, they could still think? I don't think so. My opponent seems to think that you can view a movie without some kind of physical projector. Without a physical projector, there are no images. Without a physical brain, there is no thought.Now I could be wrong, however all evidence of the universe shows that intelligence is a tool for survival and is based on the brain which is a storage device for extra information. To think that intelligence can exist without a brain will require extra-ordinary evidence. So at this time, it's safe to say that an intelligent creator of matter cannot exist (like a square circle cannot exist). Because intelligence is dependent on matter's existence...Once more, I could be wrong, but until the evidence contradicting this common sense stance arises, an intelligent creator of matter does/ did not exist. Conclusion My opponent's rebuttals to my argument didn't really hold much weight and the arguments he presented regarding intelligence were absolutely wild and outrages. X comes from non-X all the time, my opponent didn't even give one good reason why intelligence couldn't originate from non intelligence. My opponent also assumes that all creation is sentient, which I disproved. In the context of this debate at least, God does not exist.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...