God does not exist

In this round I will counter argument the points my opponent made in round 3.1. Rebuttal to The absolute lack of evidence.- 'Circumstantial evidence of God'When we look at nature, at the animal kingdom or we look up in the stars, we all feel sense of awe. When we feel the grand scale and the beauty of the world, we are naturally overwhelmed with a sense of desire to worship someone. You don't need to be a believer to feel the magnificence of these expanding universes and black holes, where you almost feel the presence of a creator, you almost feel the presence of a force capable of designing such magnitude. But this has nothing to do with a kind of God who answers prayers and cares about sins. I understand my opponent when he says that he feels inspired by this sheer beauty of the universe. Its that beauty which is the driving force of science, that awe inspiring quest for knowledge that we are after. My opponent mentioned design, I am not sure whether he is talking about the design of the living world. If he is, well he is contradicting himself because in the second rebuttal he explains that he finds evolution convincing. If he does then he understands the mechanics of evolution and knows the explanation of how and why things evolved. There is nothing left for God to explain or interfere. As I explain in my second argument, the God explanation in terms of evolution is unnecessary. 'The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. ' - Albert Einstein- 'Direct evidence for God'As far as people who claim to have seen God, David Hume deals with this very well, he says that in the case of laws of nature you have to ask yourself what is more probable, that the laws of nature have been suspended or that you are in a misapprehension. Science is not interested in that kind of superstitious nonsense.Rebuttal 2 The Unnecessary explanation(Con) mentioned that God created man, if that is true I would like to know how, since you understand evolution. What role did God play in the evolution of man, and If he created man in his image, in what image the rest of the living world is created.'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"." Well, if the Bible contradicts with science we can certainly disprove the supernatural claims. And I also explained the difference in the 'faith problem' in my first argument. If we are talking about evidence we are talking about different kind of belief, such as belief in the scientific method and rational thinking. The blind faith in a personal God is unreasonable, there is no evidence and reason to follow it.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.We do science in order to be able to make accurate predictions in the natural world. I don't think you can really say that we need to have faith in previous work. If we have testable explanations and proof we don't need faith, that's the whole point, to let us think and act rationally and not depend on a belief system. Since I didn't put another new arguments in round 3 I will put a question to my opponent. : This is a debate on the existence of God, or a debate on is there any reason to believe in a God, if there is, what are the strongest reasons supporting the claim that God exists, is there something more than just faith, maybe evidence ? And is there any reason to believe in not just a creator, but the Christian God?