Science cannot disprove God, nor does it even come close to offering anything on the matter.

Your initial claim is interesting and I hope to keep that interest alive in my response. I also appreciate that you defined the terms, which will, I believe have a large impact on the debate in the following round. Some individual in the comments are notably worried that I will drop the ball considering that the Bop is automatically shifted, however after reading R1, it seems a little more obvious on how to respond to your particular claim and I hope not to disappoint the audience. I see that we, as well of many of the viewers of this debate have dozen (or more) arguments under our belt so I’ll get down to why your claim is based on a faulty premise, logical fallacies, faulty terms and false assumptions. It was hard to get through everything so I’m unfortunately having to cherry pick some of the more egregious mistakes due to time and word constraints but it falls down to a few simple things. Black Swan Fallacy of argument 1. Science cannot disprove god. I have never seen an answer to the question so one must not exist. You have said that our limited understanding of science and its methodology does not allow it to disprove god. Just because it hasn’t yet, doesn’t mean that it will not in the future. 2000 years ago people believed Lightening, planetary formation and evolution were all gods’ realms and could not be understood. They are now all fields of study. My response is - your presumption of we can never know is invalid. Argument from Ignorance or God of the Gaps Science cannot disprove god. What about Transitional Fossils? Though slightly different then Black swan, is God of the Gaps. Rather then I don’t of any answer other than god, you have placed god into the tiny spots between what we know. There is a gap in understanding, be it a transitional fossil, the development of morality, the big bang, the cause must be supernatural and in this case god. However as Scientific knowledge has expanded the realm of god has shrunk to ever smaller proportions. My response is - At a certain point our knowledge may push god out of necessity. Argument from Either Or One of these theories is not like the other. Even if science doesn’t disprove god, it can prove something else was responsible. I’m going to pay a little homage to Douglas Adams here and the Atheist Experience. Science may prove something else created existence like - possibly that self-replicating gay pixies named bob who live on the sun made the universe with the help of pan dimensional beings that exist in our universe as mice. If this is true, it negates God. My response – If mice did it, you don’t need god. Lastly on Claim 1 You state - Our logic falls short and is not useable at this level, just like our logic has to be totally re-learned when we study the world at an atomic level. Your statement is based on a flawed assumptions and lack of understanding. Science is a methodology, it asks questions and seeks verification. Mythology is an answer begging a question (sorry for the logical fallacy pun). Our logic on this does not fall short, our knowledge does. As a side note, not part of the debate to answer your question of what could disprove god? Beside that which I listed, “I don’t know for certain” is fairly obvious. Your 2nd Claim - Life itself doesn't necessarily suggest there is not a god. I would like to rephrase this but I'm sure my opponent won't object: The cosmos itself suggests that there might be a 'God' in the broad sense. I don’t mind the rephrasing and it’s a little clearer and concise then your original and will proceed from there. However you’re no longer arguing science cannot disprove god, you’re going to its reasonable to believe in god, or that the complexity is suggesting that one exists. Which puts the Burden on you, which makes my job really easy. The first problem is that “suggests that there might” is not valid. Sand dunes “suggests that there might” be an intentional designer but it’s just the wind. You could suggest that god is behind the wind, but it’s an unnecessary step and you are now redefining the word wind. Your claim - There is the possibility of more of us (life) elsewhere, but other than that, it seems, its just rocks and stars and other 'mundane' substances. So life seems to be the most diverse and unique thing in existence. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.space.com... a more recent estimate You presume that the chances of life are rare, so god did it. However you haven’t proved it. I don’t know who built the pyramids, however until I have a justified reason to believe it, and evidence to support it, the default position isn’t aliens did it, its I don’t know. Also if we find that life exists in the billions of other planets does that mean your entire argument for god goes away because life is not that rare? Or do you then say, God is so brilliant that he can do it anywhere? Which I also reject why you claim the big bang was a miracle. You have no way to demonstrate a “rare natural cause event” vs a “rare supernatural caused event?” If you could, you would be doing something that every atheist would love to hear, a coherent argument for the proof of supernatural. Your claim -This, for me, is like a massive 'clue' in solving the puzzle of what reality truly is. . . . . The 'presence' or whatever it is, has been felt by ever culture known to man. The feeling of god is in your head, just like many people can feel there are aliens in the white house, weapons of mass destruction to justify a war or the closet monster. Children (I have one) fear the monster in the closet and under the bed. You’re not suggesting that just feeling something is validity for its existence, but that is really the position that you are holding. You claim - In a nutshell: I could see the universe, without life, as perhaps being a sort of clever chance. But with life and us, it seems too miraculous to be chance. http://rationalwiki.org... What you’re presenting is known as the fine-tuned argument. Which is also invalid. Which requires far more time in a debate here, which is why the link is provided. But basically you’re saying the odds are astronomical that life in the universe is rare. How did you come to this conclusion? If you bought a ticket for the lotto and there was at least one guaranteed winner, and you could not ask how many other tickets were sold, or even if anyone else bought a ticket, how do you judge the odds? I will fully admit that I did not touch upon two concepts in your R1. That god is unknowable or undefinable and that science only deals with the natural world. I will address them in the R2 (depending upon your response). However I believe I have sufficiently shown your original 1st claim is false or untenable, and your second claim is also (mostly) faulty and has serious holes in it to maintain its claim. This was a lot of work, and I truly enjoyed the mental exercise. Hopefully everyone was entertained, saw something new (or phrased) and enjoy the read. I am looking forward to pro’s response.