God most likely does NOT exist

Alright, last round! Let's begin Argument 1 Rationality 1) you did not refute my argument in that the universe had a beginning. Thus as this is the end, we have established the universe had a beginning. Cause and effect. 0=0 there has to be a God. 2) In this point, your argument goes that either God tuned them or we lice in many universes. I have two responses. a) my first is that this is a new argument and does not need to be refuted. b) my second is that even if we lived in a multi universe, the odds are the SAME. How did we get the millionth to a millionth point of gravity. Very unlikely from an explosion. Also where did they come from? You still have to have a God. You then brought up the point that the universe perhaps evolved our values. However this is a logical fallacy, nature is what is, thus it can't produce values about what it ought to be. 3) you basically stated that life is meaning less unless goals are set. However even if this is true, the meaning and value i was talking about were the value of life itself. Outside sources can not add to the inalienable and valuable rights to man. Slavery for example, no matter what circumstance that slave is in, his life still has value and meaning. That is what i was referring to. Only this type of value can be given by a God. 4) you dropped this point. I grant you that this point doesn't prove God but merely point our the limitations of what your beliefs are built entirely upon. What if your entire life was built upon science, and 100 yrs later, the science you built your life around was proved false? What a sad waste. Burden of Proof argument 1) I understand that it is my responsibility to prove God exists, but it is also your responsibility to prove He doesn't exist. Now i have showed at least some logic and fact that God exists, you admitted that yourself, so i have fulfilled my burden of proof. but also i would like to point something out to you, God will never be proved. He is beyond us and can never be proves 100 % , but that is where faith comes in. God will never show you Himself to prove He exists, you have to come in faith. Yes reason and logic, but ultimately faith. And as i was surprised when i first gave my life to Christ. Your faith is not illogical but logical. Please consider carefully your eternity. 2) Again, i have refuted your points and you dropped some of mine. Please consider that if a God exists, you can not expect Him to help you or forgive you unless you come to Him. It's like calling for help, how do you expect anyone to help you unless you ask. 3) "God's goodness" yes i did. I said in my first speech that just because evil exists doesn't make God "un-good" if you will. Your right, when we sin, we sin because of our free will. God wants us to come to Him in free will, or else that wouldn't be love. You also said that since God planned the future free will doesn't exist. However this is a logical fallacy. Consider this, say a general is planning an attack, he knows what his soldiers will choose in the heat of the moment thus he plans to do the following... We needn't bother with what he was planning. you see the point. God knew what we would choose, and He knew we would choose sin. Because we are corrupt. Thus free will does exist. Your next point was that God doesn't intervene when we sin. Well you are contradicting yourself. You are mad at God for no free will and yet you complain when He doesn't force you. However my response is that He did intervene in the most loving way without infringing upon our free will. He sent His son to die on the Cross for my sin and yours. So in another way, He did intervene. We must come to Him in repentance. In order for Him to be just and loving, He sent His son to die. What love! Argument 4 Civilization No man does not grant freedom. Man is charged with Protecting freedom. Man is not the source of freedom or else it would not be relative. If you acknowledge the fact that God may exist, why do you refuse come and actually see if He is real or not? Why don't you come in repentance and ask. He will answer. You see there will be a measure of faith. But if it is faith that you cringe at, as i pointed out you have to leap in faith farther in that science always shifts. God doesn't, no matter what we say or do, if He exists nothing will change that. Response 1 No, everything is absolute. The very fact we are debating shows that there is an objective standard of reason and truth! I already responded to the free will argument. Response 2 I am not forcing my belief upon you nor is God. that is the very essence of faith. If that is your view of Christianity than i sincerely hope you come to see God for who He truly is. He wants you to come in free will. Anything short of that is not love. You also said that us Christians say God intervenes because the Bible says so. Now i acknowledged that my first point was slanted and brought up another. Namely you can't make that claim that He doesn't intervene because you will not ask for help. My other point you also dropped, even if we sometimes ask for God, He let's us suffer to make us stronger. Please understand your view of God is wrong. He is pleading with you, (not i) to come to Him. Whether you see it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not. He is. And He is, i rejected Him myself and would not listen, but slowly as i let myself evaluate before me that could never say He didn't love me or care for me if I would't ask for Him. Extra Presentations, 1) your first doesn't make sense, If God exists, He is the only God. 2)Basically your point is that why does God allow wrong things? and i answered this in my first speech and later you dropped it. God gave us free will and we must suffer the consequences for choosing evil. Also i would like to point out that you are contradicting yourself. You deny His existence and yet you are angry He doesn't exist! In conclusion, I have showed many ways that God exists and has to exist. I would just like to conclude with a quote from D.K Chesterton "But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."