There is no God

"When many religious people are confronted with criticism of their religion they convert to atheism or agnosticism. Examples of people who became critical to the dogmas of christianity are Charles Darwin (Darwin, 1958), Dan Barker (Barker, 19??), Ernest Renan plus many former "Catholic modernists" in the 19th century such as Alfred Loisy and Antonio Fogazzaro (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). The Catholic modernism evolved in the late 19th century and was banned in 1907 by the Vatican (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). These people are to me clear evidence that an enlightened person will after considering the facts, reject christianity and other religions that contain deities" I imagine there was supposed to be a rebut in there somewhere, because this is simply a restatement of a previous argument. These were people of weak faith. It happens from time to time, same as many scientists become religious. The point is rather moot, as the exchange more or less balances out. The big bang theory is somewhat off-topic, but I'll oblige by sticking it into Occam's Razor. Virtual particles and Hartle-Hawking state compliance with Wheeler-deWitt equations... There's a lot of numbers in that. A lot of variables. A lot of complexity. Then compare that with "God willed it, and it was so". The simlpest answer is obviously "God willed it". My opponent then argues that we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. Hmm... Probably because He's God. He is omnipotent and eternal. The answer is "because He said so." It's no more for us to question it further than it is for a car salesman to recalibrate the life-support systems on the space shuttle. If that allusion is too cryptic, it means "We wouldn't understand it, it's not our place". Which is not to say that we couldn't be made to understand, but the time and effort it would take is not worth it. My opponent continues "Complex, statistically improbable things, by definition, don't just happen; they demand an explanation in their own right." Do they really? Where's that written? And by whom? Which theory for the origins of that guy would Occam's Razor favor? God the Creator, or a bazillion unlikely coincidences? At this point, my opponent threw down the gauntlet and adopted his very typically atheist technique of demeaning the intelligence or rationale of faithful people. To do so, my opponent again stands on the shoulders of real thinkers (logical maneuvering typical of college undergraduates who have not yet learned to think for themselves) and pokes holes in logic that is over seven hundred years old and is no longer considered valid in the religious community, which leads me to believe that he upholds in his mind the stereotype that there is no revision of thought in the faiths. All he proves by doing this is his own ignorance of modern Christian thought, much less the thinkers of other faiths. Most of the traditional arguments for the existence of God are based on ancient thinking, which was in turn based on ancient principles. It was razor sharp in St. Thomas Aquinas' day, but then so was bloodletting and burning witches. We don't think like they do anymore. We have a new rationale, and it is this: you can't prove God exists because He won't allow Himself to be proven. Science takes His silence and says "You see? It's proof that He doesn't exist". While those of us with powers of reasoning and a strong faith say to ourselves "that's not proof". His proof is the lack of solid, immutable evidence that God doesn't exist along with the faith of an overwhelming majority of mankind in a God. This, by the way, is an excellent point. Atheists make up a very small portion of the world's population. We'll say around 5%. You know what, I'll be really generous and double that. 10% of the world's population doesn't believe in a God or gods. So, by your arguments, you believe that 90% of the world is just completely wrong. My opponent has repeatedly failed to present solid evidence to support his claim, but has instead taken to using other peoples' old, worn-out arguments to chip away at the faith of others. The little evidence he has presented has fallen into two categories: 1) named principles only, without more in-depth exploration of the application of those concepts. 2) reasonable logic based on faulty or fallacious linchpin assumptions, the correction of which caused the collapse of his arguments. Without solid proof supporting his claim or dismantling my counter-claim, his resolution must be overturned. You simply cannot justifiably state as objective fact that God does not exist.