Does God exist

Hello, I will be arguing not for a deities non-existence, but rather to demonstrate that such a thing cannot be proven nor is the evidence provided by my opponent applicable as I will here display. 1. Your first argument is nothing but a god of the gaps argument, and simply assumes that a designer or deity was behind what we see. Rather we know from modern science why the Earth is the way it is and why present life forms are they are. Take for example the planet, everything that exists on this planet is from the remains of a star gone super-nova, star dust you could say that about 4.56 billion years ago (as radio metric dating has shown) formed our planet and solar system from the remains of those many stars gone super nova. The elements such as Carbon, Iron, etc. are all formed through continuous fusion that takes place in the center of a star and the super nova (which results from the creation of iron) provides the rarer elements that can only be created via that kind of heat. As for the complexity of life, that is accounted for by biological evolution via natural selection. This conclusion can be arrived at by acknowledging these simple facts. A. Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms. B. Organisms produce more progeny than can survive. C. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce. What follows from these facts is that different organisms will receive heritable traits that will lend more successfully to their survival and thus reproduce, while heritable traits that do not assist the organism in it's survival will not reproduce. Thus through random mutations and the non random consequences of effects populations change over time, and life has existed for 3.8 billion years. For example, say we have a Polar Bear that has 2 cubs, one is born with white fur and the other has a genetic mutation that results in it having black fur. The Polar Bear with the black fur would have a much harder time surviving due to a lack of camouflage than the white Polar Bear and thus would not be likely to survive and pass on it's genes. This is an example of Natural Selection, where random mutations are preferred by nature by non random consequences. 2. This second argument seems to be arguing for god's aseity (the power of being) and also a "god the sustainer" argument. In some sense we do depend on other beings in order to exist, such as our parents who reproduce and we then grow from a Zygote (single celled organism) to an Embryo to a Fetus and then born as Human child. We then also require continual sustenance from our environment to fuel our individual cells to keep us alive. However, we do not require some sort of being outside of time and space somehow continually sustaining our existence, we are autonomous beings who have the capacity of individual thought and thus do not require an outside source. The argument that we do require this is nothing but an assumption on my opponents side, which he reveals when he says "suppose they are." It is a hypothesis build on a fallacious weak analogy and supposition without evidence. Now I will address his remarks about existence being a gift that must be given by a deity. This ontological argument is also a god of the gaps fallacy, which basically goes like this. 1. We don't really know how we exist. 2. It must have been caused by something. 3. Therefore god did it. It is a conclusion inserted not via rational thought, but rather by his presupposition and personal belief and an almighty being. The correct answer for the problem of being is really that we don't know yet. Physicists have worked on the big question of what comes before the big bang and it could be another universe in a different dimension, it could have been caused by a quantum vacuum. Basically what we know is that we are here and we exist, and that making huge proclamations about what caused the universe without taking into considerations the intricacies such as quantum mechanics, is really a poor way to go about "knowing" things. Based upon my opponents arguments I am of the opinion that it has been revealed that one cannot know that a deity exists. Rather, he is more than welcome to suppose and believe that a god exists, but to use such evidence as the complexity of life and the problem of being as support only results in special pleading. Essentially he is ignoring arguments to the contrary and then presupposing based off his initial bent to say "god-did-it." When it comes to issues like this I have no problem with my opponent exercising his faith and being public about it, but we should recognize it for what it is truly.. faith. And the correct answer for the question of "Does God Exist" is simply this: I don't know... but here is what I believe. Thank you for your time, TrueScotsman