RESOLVED: It is more logical to believe that no 'God' exists

OPENING It will be my burden of proof throughout this debate to provide arguments supporting the assertion that it is more logical to believe that no "God" exists. Let me remind my opponent and the voters that I have defined "God" specifically as a Personal God; one who not only created the Universe and exhibits the omni-max traits (that is omniscient, omnipotence and omni-benevolence) but who takes a personal interest in the happenings of humanity and answers prayers.I would also like to add that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God, since by all definitions he exists outside the laws of nature. It is NOT my burden of proof to prove that God doesn't exist, only to show it is more logical to believe that no God exists.Thank you and good luck to my opponent.ARGUMENTSPRAYERI assert that all prayers that are answered (for example, I pray to you Jesus, for my sick son to get better) are simply improbable events. People miraculously recover from illness regardless of which God, if any, is being prayed to on their behalf. This study [1] shows that not only did prayer NOT help people recover from illness, but that people who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.On the other hand, if you pray for something that is physically impossible (for example, I pray to you Allah to regrow my lost hand) it will never be answered. Ever.If you consider this logically, it becomes clear that prayers are not answered and that any prayers which appear to have been answered are simply the product of coincidence. SCRIPTUREI assert that there is no scripture in existence that contains knowledge that is radically outside the knowledge of the men who lived at the time of its writing. There are many websites which chronicle the fatal flaws within the most popular religious texts and it would be intellectually lazy for me to simply list them and flood my opponent with dozens of flaws to explain, so instead I challenge my opponent to show any piece of scripture which contains knowledge that would be impossible for the writers to have known.I assert that all supposedly divinely-inspired scripture was simply written by men who, for better or worse, wished to exert their will on the people around them. To give my opponent something to respond to, I'll simply give some examples:Slavery and misogyny in the BibleWar and misogyny in the QuranMisogyny is a common theme in both books; logical deduction would indicate this is because these scriptures were written by men rather than because an omni-max, personal God favours men over women.Slavery is condoned in the Bible; logical deduction would indicate this is because the people who wrote those sections of the Bible wanted slaves rather than because an omni-max, personal God condones slavery.War is a strong theme in the Quran; logical deduction would indicate this is because the people who wrote the Quran were at war, rather than because an omni-max, personal God wanted a war.EXISTANCEI assert that the origin of the Universe occurred naturally and that no magical explanation is needed.I assert that the origin of life on Earth occurred naturally and that no magical explanation is needed.Science has come a long way in the past few hundred years.Here are some questions. The explanation was once unknown by mankind and various mythologies was used to answer them [edit: apologies for the bulletpoint formatting, DDO just does it that way >_<] Why does it rain? Why does the sun rise and set? Why do people get sick? Why do some crops succeed and some crops fail? What causes the ocean's waves? Why are some people beautiful and some people ugly? Each of these questions was once answered with one God or another. We now have a variety of sciences to explain these things: meteorology, cosmology, medicine, advanced agriculture, tidal science and genetics (though some people are just unfortunate).We have a variety of strong cosmological models for the origin of the Universe.We have schools of science offering natural origins for life on Earth.If one takes the time to look at the past and rationally look into the future, we can deduce that as these schools of science advance, they will gather stronger and stronger evidence in support of these theories and eventually these questions will be answered.CONCLUSIONIf God doesn't answer prayers, scripture isn't divinely inspired and theoretically we can naturally explain all of existence then what can we conclude?God is imaginary and therefore belief in the existence of such beings is illogical.I didn't want to bog down the debate with too much information too early, as it leaves us quarrelling about these arguments for the rest of the rounds, so I've kept it simple. If my opponent wants further evidence, clarification and/or explanation regarding these arguments, I'll be happy to provide them in the next round.I will also provide my final two arguments.Over to you.SOURCES[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...