God does not exist

I hope I'm following this debate format correctly. Its tempting to debate round 3's rebuttal of my opening argument, but I'm posting just round 2 rebuttals. 1. Rebuttal to The absolute lack of evidence. Not entirely true. And I'll explain using legal terms. There are two kinds of evidence used in a court of law; direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence. An example of the latter is a fingerprint at the crime scene, thus we can infer that the owner of the fingerprint is connected to the crime. A witness of the crime is a form of direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence of God could include His hand in nature and its design. While I find circumstantial evidence of God's existence to be inspiring, it does not hold strong ground in a debate because it remains a belief, and not tangible fact. However a compelling argument can be made for direct evidence in the form of testimonies of people who have witnessed God in person. In a court of law, one witness is often times enough to make a conviction. The scriptures provide many witnesses. Rebuttal 2 The Unnecessary explanation I have to agree with Pro on most of this argument. I don't believe God to be some sort of tyrannical oppressor, who keeps his subjects in ignorance as the Catholic church did. If God created man, he gave us a brain to better understand, utilize, and be good stewards of the earth. All natural things certainly have a scientific explanation or theory to them. None of which are absolute or obsolete. Evolution is the latest theory to the origin of the natural world, and ultimately man. Being a student of evolution, I find it fascinating and convincing. However, such evidences shouldn't overthrow the basic tenants of science. Specifically the overthrow of objective observation. This is how bias enters the scientific realm. I have always admired my mentors who were convinced of evolution privately, but studied and taught in complete neutrality of it, Leaving a space for further exploration. Also, a theist cannot deny the theory of evolution "because the Bible says so," and an atheist cannot deny God exists cause "science says so"." That's not the objective of science or the bible. Yes, I still remember Pro's stance on atheist absolution to disproving God's existence, but there must be some agreement that belief/nonbelief systems gets in the way of seeing what's in front of us. It doesn't make either one wrong or bad, but participators in life. New argument- Pro said, "All science is based on reason and not faith." I have to disagree with this assertion, as I find that faith and science share certain qualities. -application of the scientific method works on previous knowledge to predict the outcome of something unknown. If previous data is lacking, it becomes extremely difficult to make conclusions for future experiments, so in a sense you have faith in previous work to be both precise and accurate. -likewise faith requires a certain amount of experimentation. I sense a fear from atheists that if they were to convert as a result of spiritual experimentation, they must leave reason and logic behind to embrace ignorance, the kind of ignorance exemplified by many theists. That's simply not true. You can have both science and religion operating in your own sphere. Much like how a person uses the left and right parts of their brain.