God does not exist

I" would like to give credit to the great atheist, Richard Dawkins," to use semantics and spread confusion about scientific definitions and drive his belief in non belief deeper into culture. Lets look again at scientific definitions Definition of Scientific theory: is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. As you can see it is more than just opinion, or conjecture, and doesn't discount it's validity. Scientific fact: is" a repeatable or verifiable observation. Much like observing population genetics, or fossil record. The part of evolution we are concerned with in this debate is the origin of new species. Has this been observed? No. Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. It's well supported, but if it were scientific fact, then why do we continue to test it, or why is there a need to support it? Evolution remains theory. " Pro and Richard Dawkins both have faith in something not seen. Here's a more broad definition Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Exercising faith or belief is a very basic quality needed in human life. Any contemporary philosopher will confirm that. Those who profess that they can deny themselves of such a quality, and operate entirely on logic and reason, is feeding you a line. Pro persists to claim I haven't provided evidence of God. I have repeatedly offered at least one, plus an ontological explanation. Its clear that Pro views faith as irrational especially with a lack of tangible or circumstantial evidence. As I have pointed out before, I cannot provide a relic, a fingerprint, or anything tangible other than perhaps the fact We posses ancient scripture, but I can offer my testimony of personal spirituality, or that I have witnessed miracles that defy the statistical prediction of the outcome. " As I rephrased before. Atheists are not interested in that, because it requires relying on someone's word. Its a general distrust. I refuse to live life without trust in other people. I'm inclined to test people and their word, and ultimately continue to trust or distrust, much like any relationship. Some religions/churches are examples of particularly bad relationships, but that shouldn't prevent one from seeking out a meaningful one. The idea of God is transcendent. My opponent brought out the argument "of God exists, then why do bad things happen? Because mortal life is prerequisite to immortality. The bad things that happen here refines and sanctifies the soul in preparation for eternity. Its presumptuous to believe that God is some sort of welfare nanny. That He will interfere with every motive of mankind. That takes away from our ability to self improve, and be self reliant. Again this perspective of a nanny state points to the complete absence studying out God. Its certainly easier to just not believe. Upon writing this rebuttal I tried to exclude any new arguments, so that this will be my final statement. In The course of this debate I have been put to the fire, frustrated, enlightened by discovery to defend my position, and obtained a deeper conviction of my stance. I'm sure my opponent can say the same.