God does not exist

Thanks to Pyyrate for the challenge! For this debate, I will accept con"s definition of God. " I believe that it is extremely difficult to prove, if even at all possible, the existence of God. However, I also believe that it is equally difficult to prove the nonexistence of God." I would agree with this statement, but I must make a few points. I point to round 1 stipulation: "The challenger must assume the burden of proof since I cannot prove a non-existence. I can only prove alternatives and fallacies in arguments for. Challenger must prove "God" exists." I do not believe it is possible to prove a nonexistence. One might be able to prove that it wasn"t a God who started the big bang for example, but that does not necessarily prove there is no God. However, in the case of a unicorn, you can present evidence to prove they exist, however I cannot present evidence that they don"t. So, is it undecided on whether they exist or not? This is called "Evidence of absence." There is a debate for this also, "Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This is why I tend to put Burden of proof on the Con in this argument: making a claim such that an all powerful being created the entire universe is a huge one, and as Carl Sagan famously said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." With that being said, con has presented two types of evidence with logical questions: the origin of the universe and humanity itself. " To be absolutely certain that God exists--or does not--is to have irrefutable proof." "Therefore, we will search for evidence showing that God COULD exist, rather than that He does." Here, I would argue that one could say anything COULD hypothetically exist. But, what would the "default" position be until proof is obtained and where is the line drawn? Fairies, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy COULD exist. If I make that proposition though, are we to lean more to the "yes they probably/quite possibly do" or are we to lean towards the "they probably do not exist" or "you must prove they exist before we can accept they do." Again, I lean towards the Carl Sagan statement. However, I would also argue con has failed to show me that it is more likely God exists (in the definition provided by con and my definition of creator of the universe) than does not. To the origin of the universe argument: "what was there before the universe?" Scientists believe that the answer is absolutely nothing. Yet it is not that they believe there was nothing, it is simply that they do not see how there could have possibly been anything--other, of course, than the singularity" Would it not, however, make sense that it was God who created this singularity?" There is a general agreement in the scientific community of the existence of the big bang, I agree. Science tends to point out in Quantum Mechanics that things happen, at random, without any cause. (Virtual Particles, etc.) This is the purely scientific reasoning behind the big bang. Also, what the science community colloquially calls "nothing" is often misunderstood by the general public. The singularity is more the result of extrapolation using general relativity however. There are several competing theories over what happened directly before the big bang however I will try to point out the flaw in the first cause argument using logic, not pure science, as this is something unsettled currently. Con has basically posited the "first cause" argument. He has given the "first cause" the name "God" and has assigned some of the necessary qualities to it in order to give it the ability to start the universe. Here are the issues as I see it. If we use the logic of causality, there is always a cause that creates any given effect. To explain the effect we know as the universe, con has used God as the first cause, who itself is uncaused. There is a logical flaw in this argument. Con has had to abandon the very logic he used to justify his conclusion to allow the first cause"s existence. He has claimed the first cause had itself no cause. Con"s argument is that because every effect/cause (the Universe) must have had a preceding cause, we must have a "something" that had no cause. The second part of that sentence must ignore the first part to be true. Causality must be ignored when using causality to explain the universe using a first cause. Using this pure logic can only lead to one conclusion however: in order for causality to remain true, there must be an infinite chain of cause and effect. It is the only solution to the origin of the universe that fits this logic. Although I may not be able to say with certainty what the cause immediately prior to the Big Bang/Singularity was, I can logically deduce that the cause itself must have had something before it to make it happen, ad infinitum. If one argues that the infinity of this existence is impossible, one has also immediately said the uncaused,-without a beginning- God is impossible. If one argues that God does not need a cause, he has succumbed to Occam"s Razor, and merely added a layer of explanation that itself cannot be understood or explained. Why is it impossible for the Universe to start without cause, or be finite (if you include what was before the big bang) but an all powerful entity, who cannot be directly proved or even understood, is immune to this logical reasoning? The Self: I agree, the human mind is an amazing thing, and it seems we have barely scratched the surface of the 3 lb organ between our ears, but in this example I would point to another example of Occam"s Razor. In your argument, you have explained the human mind/soul as something so complicated and amazing, that it could have only been put there by something even more complicated and amazing. "Where did the self come from?" (Particularly consciousness in your argument). You are claiming it came from an infinitely complicated "self" or "God." So then where did "God"s self" come from? You haven"t truly answered the question in your argument; rather you have added another layer of unexplainable complexity on top of it. Not only has science made great strides in understanding the self, but if the trend continues, it may one day be able to answer this age old question. I tend to lean towards consciousness being an emergent phenomena of our brains. What is the difference in our theories and how could mine be preferable to yours? I believe the complex physical brain and its interactions (the whole greater than the sum of its parts here) causes the self to emerge. In a nut shell, science has physical brains and can test them to see if this is accurate. I could be proven wrong or maybe right, but it is likely we will one day know whether I am correct or not. You believe that an all powerful, undetectable, unable to be understood being has placed consciousness in every embryo conceived. You cannot test this or prove it, but you say it is not only possible but probable. You present no real evidence, aside from the amazing complexity of the self, that only a higher complexity could design it. Especially since this "higher self than ours" had no "higher self than it" to design it. This higher self could not be explained and neither could ours. So, to wrap up: You cannot use logic to define a problem and then abandon it to give the answer. Complexity is not explained by adding more complexity that cannot be explained. Therefore, not only have you not met the burden of proof showing God exists, you have failed to use logic and other arguments to show that he reasonably COULD exist" which even then would not show that he DID exist.