There is no evidence that a god exists

I thank Con for his response and argument in round 1. Although he states he has decimated my argument he has simply asserted assumptions which while granting his argument, are logically flawed and contradictory within them self. Cons logical contradiction Con asserts 2 points, which when we look back at it, completely contradict each other. 1. Something can't come from nothing. 2. Therefore God must have created something from nothing. If premise 2 is correct, then premise one is false, as it has been done. Something From Nothing Lets look at this a bit more. Con asserts that God must exist because something can't come from nothing. This assumes that he knows something HAS come from nothing. I ask Con to please back this up, since to the best of my knowledge we do not have an example of such an event. If Con is stating the creation of the universe, there is no proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or indeed that it was created. I will also go ahead and say that the Big Bang Theory does not state that we were created out of nothing. All the matter that the entire universe is made of was already present (albeit in a different form) at the Big Bang. Con has not stated what he means by nothing, what I will say though is that in quantum physics something very much CAN come from nothing. The Natural State If you can define nothing, and back it up, then we could assume in that situation there are two states of existence: something and nothing. Con could thenassume that to explain any state change from the more natural to the more un-natural you need an outside agent such as God. For natural to natural would occur regardless of a Godly presence. Why should nothing be more natural than something? Nobel Laureate Physicist Frank Wilczek states that if you form a state that has no quarks or anti-quarks in it, its totally unstable and It spontaneously starts producing quark-antiquark pairs. Therefore the state of no-thing cannot maintain symmetry. It backs up the metaphysical view that No-Thing had an imperative to generate Some-Thing. With this in mind, we expect that the natural state of existence to be something rather than nothing regardless of requiring God. In fact it would take a God to maintain an eternal state of nothing! Therefore, God Lets assume for a second that something cannot come form nothing, and that Con has evidence of such an event (even though this would prove something can come from nothing), and that nothing is the more natural state. This is not in itself a proof of God. Simply a proof of something which understands physics better than us. We could just as easily say that a breed of physics bending aliens did it. All that Con would have done is show an event that we cannot explain one way or another, the evidence that God specifically did it still needs presenting. You can't just say "Something we can't explain happened, therefore... God!" You can believe it, as said in Cons round 1, but belief is not proof. Within a box Lets go a step further, and assume that aliens, or any other explanation was disproved. Lets say we can categorically say that a force outside of our universe 100% must have created our universe from a state in which the universe absolutely did not exist. Now, that's alot of assumptions, but lets even grant all those for a second. How do we know that absolutely nothing exists outside our universe. In something similar to Plato's Allegory Of The Cave, Lets say we have only lived in a box. The box has no windows, you cant hear, see or perceive in any way anything outside the box. You, and everybody you have ever met live in this box. You study this box, walk around in this box and live our your entire life in this box. Could you say "something must have created this box, it must have been a God"? We do this with animals, both as pets and in safari's etc. The animals ability to not venture outside or perceive anything beyond the set enclosure does not make us a God. Now put this analogy to our context. The universe is a box. All our current study, understanding, sensual experience and context comes from within this box. How can we know that "nothing" was outside the box. We can't go out and check. In fact its just as plausible that outside the box of the universe is a kid with 7 science sets for a school project and our box is one of 7. This kid isn't all powerful, doesn't have all wisdom and who's to say he's good? Maybe after school is done he's going to set the box on fire, or stomp on it! The God contradiction Is God powerful enough to create something that He Himself cannot understand? If yes, then he is not all-knowing. If no, then he is not all-powerful. Can God create a rock so heavy that even God himself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable by God, limiting the Gods power, and meaning that he is not all powerful, If not? he is not all powerful. God, as described as both all-knowing and all-powerful, is a contradictory entity and cannot exist. Therefore, your definition of God as stated in Round 1 cannot exist. The Evil Man Con asserts that God must be good. Why? I assert that it is just as plausible for a being that is greatly evil to have created everything. If Con proved all of the above points in his favour, surely the being to create something from nothing could just as easily be perfectly evil. After all, we live in a world full of war, hatred, starvation, slavery, disease and death. Surely a perfectly good God would have created a universe that is free of these things. Conclusion Cons logic contradicts itself. Something can come from nothing. If you have nothing, it is likely to create something, naturally, without God. It is just as likely that a school kid, alien or perfectly evil being created everything, instead of God. The concept of God is in itself a logical contradiction, and cannot exist. Due to all of the above points, I think I have shown that there is no evidence for Gods existence, and possibly, even further than that, there is evidence that no God by our current definition exists.