Atheism vs Christianity : Does God exist

As I stated in R1 this is a shared burden of proof. We are discussing the possibility that a God exists. Which is a more viable option. The fact that the Universe can exist without God, or the fact that it was created. Since this is a shared burden of proof, we both have to offer evidence to support this claim. I have shown how we can arrive at the conclusion that the universe does not need a God. So Con must show that God in fact does exist and argue this from a Christian perspective. I will now offer rebuttals to some of Cons points. (1) God was created at the big bang. (2) Evolution does not discount there is a God(3) The Bible is False(4) We do not need proof to know that there is a God(5) God exists to bring balance(1)My adversary claims that God could have been possibly created at the big bang. That when the Big bang occurred, he helped guide the process of life. By believing this he has already defeated himself. Since we know that all matter, space , and time was not eternal and was created at the big bang, this would get rid of the need for a God. The main staple in Apologetics is the fact that God created the universe from nothing. Science would have to show how something can come from nothing to disprove this. By stating that God was created after the big bang, which we know is the point at which matter was made, it literally rips apart the need for a God. He could state this possibly could have happened but then would have to show evidence to support this. Since we are sharing the Burden of Proof and there is no evidence to support this theory, it is merely speculation. (2)I agree, Evolution does not discredit the fact that there is a God. In fact many Christians believe that he guided evolution. This is called theistic evolution. This however has the same problem as the last argument, it is an assumption and nothing can prove this to be true. So this point is erroneous. (3) I have heard some Christians state this as well. They believe it is full of good morals and that if you follow the life of Christ the world would be a better place. Again this does not apply to this debate. It does not prove that God exists, but actually by admitting the bible is a way to command moral authority by using parables, discredits the existence of a God further. (4)There is no way to say this other than this statement is 100 percent wrong. He states that because of the mass number of people having personal experiences this in a way acts as evidence. If we were to simply believe people by their word, we would have to accept the fact that aliens are abducting people and anal raping them. There is a vast majority of people who are into paranormal stuff that believe they have been abducted. You can no simply state that because a lot of people believe it, that discredits the need for evidence because of faith that it happened. (5)This is essentially a God of the gaps argument and is not relevant to the debate. The universe has extreme conditions under which it functions and because of the vast amount of balance required to keep it functioning, there has to be a God. This is illogical and wrong. We can place any being here under that assertion. I can state santa claus brings balance to the universe, or that Barack Obama is in fact a celestial being that helps earth maintain its circular rotation around the sun. The perfect analogy was made by Bertrand Russell and Richard Hawkins used the same example in his book along with Sam Harris and a few others. Bertrand stated that if there was a teapot orbiting around the sun somewhere between the earth and mars, there is no way to discredit this. The only way to simply believe it was on faith. This got coined as "Russel's Teapot". You can see the philosophical angle he was getting at. The point he was making was that because he makes this claim, it is illogical for others to believe in this teapot simply because no one can prove him wrong. In closing. I have shown why most of Cons arguments are either minute or off topic. He has yet to show evidence that supports the existence of a God but simply claims that one could possibly exist. He has not demonstrated evidence to support his assertion, but has argued the teapot argument as I have just shown. WE do need evidence to see that there is a God, more than assuming one exists. I on the other hand have shown how the universe could have came to be without a God. I have also show how life can come to be from nothing. Until Con offers some type of evidence to support his claims and refutes mine, the most logical conclusion is that a God probably does not exist.