God and Science (Specifically Evolution and Big Bang) are Mutually Exclusive

Your argument is very good and very well thought out, and I thank you for that. However, I will argue that you are making a few basic false assumptions that lead your argument astray. ""Oh... we were wrong before - THAT's how god works!" How many times must this happen?" And this is just like how science works, is it not? Numerous theories have been put forward, thought to be true, and then new evidence came up and they were refuted or changed- and scientists said the same thing, "Oh, we were wrong before, that's how [insert phenomena here] works!". By the same argument, I could argue that when will science finally get their act together? Further, you imply that religion must be a set of static beliefs that cannot change with further research, meditation, reasoning, and learning. This could not and should not be true- many churches, especially the Catholic church, have changed parts of their beliefs over the years to better suit themselves to their world. "When Physicists cannot explain what caused the Big Bang, they turn to God." This quote of yours is blatantly false. When physicists cannot explain what caused the Big Bang, they go back to their instruments and keep looking." You are correct, I meant to say that they can turn to god should they so choose. Further, you assume that all physicists are atheists. In your argument you are assuming that your position is correct. "First, we need a working definition of god - we shall call him an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. We'll call this OP/OS/OB for sake of simplification..." This assumption itself is very flawed. No god must necessarily be by any means OB. The Jewish/Christian/Islamic god of the old testament is by no means in any way benevolent- destroying whole cities, even in essence the entire earth through the legend of Noah's Ark. He is vindictive, cruel, and at times petty. Further, you seem to imply that the only concept of god is the Christian god- for example the gods of ancient Greece were extremely similar to humans in their behavior, experiencing anger, lust, jealousy, and acting in accordingly cruel ways. For all a religious person knows, God may in fact of created the entire world and put all of our troubles here because he was bored. Further, you rule out the mere idea of an alternate reasoning for God's assumed use of evolution- There is no reason to assume that god used evolution because that's the only way he could do it, he could have other intentions- the most obvious would be planting evidence to test his worshiper's faith. "However, we can see evidence that the Big Band Theory is correct. Adding God to this theory is akin to my saying the glass on the desk in front of me is full of creme soda, but it's not a natural creme soda we can interact with. I'm still going to say the glass is empty." Again, you assume that you are correct in your argument- although it is not necessarily *correct* to simply add god to whatever scientific findings may come up, it does provide a way for science and religion to coexist- one can in fact believe that God made the big bang for whatever reason he wishes to, and end up simultaneously believing in God and the big bang. "The Big Bang is basically as far back as science can go. If God preceded the Big Bang as an unnatural being, that causes one to ask, "Then where did god come from?" The classical answer is that God always was. Whoop-de-doo. Matter always was, then. There's no way to refute either claim." There is not a way to refute either claim- and that is the point. Science cannot (at this time) say what caused the big bang, can it? No. Nor can it say where said big bang came from. Similarly, the religious cannot answer for god. You are holding religion to answer for a question that science cannot answer its version of either. Is this not similar to me saying that everything you have ever said is wrong because you do not know the place of birth of your great great great great grandmother, even though I do not know the same thing for me? "People don't rise from the dead. Religion states that this happened at least 4 times in Jesus' life - Lazarus, the legionnaire's boy, the girl in the funeral, and Jesus himself. This is clearly a violation of natural law." You make the assumption here that the only way to view religion is absolutely literally. Is religion not allowed to make use of parables and exaggerate stories somewhat to make a point? Considering that one of the main purposes of religion is to tell people how to live as a good person, this is acceptable. You assume the only way to take the bible is literally, that the bible in fact is supposed to be interpreted literally (this is argued between different religious sects). Both of these are false. I would also like to remind you of what this debate is- it is whether God and Religion are Mutually Exclusive. Hence, is it possible for someone to simultaneously believe in religion and science? I have proven that all of your arguments, which are excellent, are based on flawed assumptions and are hence invalid. I eagerly await your reply.