Is God real

To begin with, he left much of my case untouched, especially my argument about the lack of evidence for the existence of God, as well as the inconsistency of religion. His only attack towards my proof of the theory of evolution revolved around the definition of the word "theory". Unfortunately, it seems my opponent is not familiar with said definition. The definition of "scientific theory" is as follows:"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method - and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. " [1]This applies to the theory of evolution, which has had proof offered as to its validity time and time again - some of that proof was mentioned in my exposition in round 2, but it was largely ignored by my opponent. Furthermore, this definition also states that theories are accepted as valid explanations of phenomenons - this also applies to evolution. Now, of course the theory of evolution is falsifiable - in fact, if a theory is even to be accepted in the first place, it must leave some space for scientific falsification. A theory that lacks said space (like the theory - nay, hypothesis - of a creator) is to be immediately rejected and dismissed. My opponent then goes on to claim that:a) No one refers to the idea of God as a theoryb) The idea of God cannot be definitely proven wronga) True. The idea of God isn't a theory. It cannot be, because it doesn't meet the criteria stated by the definition of the term scientific theory. The idea of God is a hypothesis, and a false one. It is a hypothesis made out of the blue with no evidence - indeed, if one were to ridicule said hypothesis, they would not be mistaken in doing so. b) This is exactly why the idea is to be dismissed. If I, say, proclaimed the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Ceiling Cat, could you prove it wrong? You couldn't. But yet, due to the incredulity of said proclamation, you'd dismiss it, and you would be correct. Obviously, you haven't read about Russell's teapot, in utter disregard to the fact that the link to an explanati was displayed plainly for you to use. Given that unfortunate circumstance, I'll explain. The burden of proof is on religion to prove existence. We can know with almost complete certainty that the idea of God is false. There is only the smallest percent of space left in that dismissal, the one for falsifiability. Science is fair, you see. It always leaves space for falsifiability. Until religion proves its outlandish claims and stops using the "God of the gaps", said astronomicaly small percent is to be disregarded as a viable explanation. Furthermore, a fallacy was committed by my opponent - one known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. [2]What it encompasses in this particular subject is the statement: "We can't prove it is wrong, so it is definitely true. "Do you not see a problem here? Or a contradiction, perhaps? I know, I just do, talk to the hand - the favorite religious argument. Well, I won't be talking to the hand. I'll rather appeal to reason. Reason which keeps lowering the space for religion to swim in and adapt to science. And soon, that space will diminish. Due to that fact, as long as religion offers no proof for its claims, it is to be dismissed. Vote con! SOURCES:[1] . http://www.livescience.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...