God definitely does not exist, and the agnostic view is wrong.

My opponent states that a "logical contradiction will always be inferior to concrete evidence" and also asks me for a source supporting my statement that "a logical contradiction out rules the need for evidence." I believe this is the most important point in this debate, on which everything else depends, and so I will address it first. Logic is the primary tool of cognition; its rules were discovered by Aristotle. All science depends on using logic. For instance, an observation of reality becomes an evidence for something only when it is attached to existing body of knowledge, by using logic. In other words, logic is more fundamental than science. It is science that is built "on top" of logic, not the other way around. If there are two premises, and logic shows that they contradict to each other, then one of them must be false. No amount of new observations of reality (what my opponent calls "evidence") will change this fact. You must reject one of the premises. The reason for this is the Law of Identity, a law of logic that was stated by Aristotle in the form of "A is A". A contradiction is when one is brought, from some premises, to the statement against this law, namely "A is not A". In our particular case, logic tells us that the premise that "God exists" is in error, because it contradicts prior premise of "nothing exists outside of existence". No amount of new observations will resolve this conflict. Logic tells you that one of the two premises is false. Which one? Clearly the new premise is false, because the former one can't be wrong (it is an axiom), as my opponent admits. Another analogy that may help to make this even clearer is an algebraic equation that is proved logically to have no solutions. For example, the equation 3*Y = 3-X has no integer solutions except X = 0, Y = 0, by logic alone. No amount of trial and error to find a solution, by plugging in values for X and Y will be able to deny this conclusion. If Y and X stand for integer quantities, for instance number of atoms in a certain experiment, then the equation is a contradiction. It shows that the experimenter made an error in the premises concerning analysis of the experiment, and that those premises caused him to write that incorrect equation down. Finally, adherence to logic is not an issue of belief. It is the only method of cognition available to Man, and everything we know is derived using this mechanism, starting from some observations. The observations are "plugged-in" as input premises into our logical faculty, called "reason", and what comes out of it is new knowledge. I will now address other points that my opponent made. He states that we can downgrade God to be an alien, ghostly being outside of material universe. A one who lives in some sort of immaterial "heaven". But this does not apply to our debate: it would be a subject of another debate if an immaterial being can exist. Certainly, there is no evidence of something like this in reality, because consciousness does not exist as apart of a person possessing it. (Consciousness is the only immaterial aspect of reality that has been observed.) Instead of debating alien beings, we must constrain ourselves to debate God as is postulated by religious people. Let's take the Judeo-Christian God. This God has created everything because he is all powerful. This includes immaterial things such as thoughts and the "heaven". Therefore, the "everything" must refer to the whole universe, not just the material universe. Furthermore, the requirement that God has created everything also means that God must have created himself too, which is impossible and is another logical contradiction. (If he has to create himself, then he didn't exist before he started creating himself: contradiction) Although I entertained the possibility of the existence of an immaterial part of universe as apart from material part of universe, this division is only mental. A physical division like this is impossible. Matter can not be created out of nothing, it has to be created out of something. Therefore, that something is just another form of matter. For instance, lets say that what we observe as matter is an intersection of some energy fields. Then, we could say that all that there is is a collection of energy fields. Matter is just a manifestation of an aspect of other entities. (After all, we can't physically separate the aspect of color from entities possessing it, we do it only mentally --- color is just a concept.) Therefore, when we say "universe" we must include all of existing things in this universe, not just part that we know how to measure. All in all, the requirement that God is supernatural places him outside of nature, therefore the universe, therefore existence. Therefore the concept of God is a myth, a metaphysical impossibility.