All humans ought to assume that the Christian God does not exist, based on lack of evidence.

For easy reading and typing, I will refer to PRO as "he" in the instances that "he or she" would generally be accepted. "All humans ought to assume that the Christian God does not exist, based on lack of evidence." This is the claim that my opponent has asserted. I will attempt to prove this statement false throughout this debate. I would like to start with this point: the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. [1] In most debates on the subject of religion, it is the one advocating the religion who usually takes on the burden of proof since he is usually the one making the claim. However, in this debate, the shoe is on the other foot; it is up to PRO to prove his statement to be true. My job in this debate is not to prove that the Christian God exists or even to prove that any omnipotent being exists. It is simply to provide enough evidence to show that it is not the case that all humans ought to assume that the Christian God does not exist based on lack of evidence. To make the claim that PRO makes is to say that anyone who believes the Christian God exists is committing a logical fallacy. He asserts that if one does not have sufficient evidence, one should not believe that something is true. With this in mind, let"s look at the most common reason Christians put forth to support their idea that there is a God. Christians choose to believe that the complexity of our universe and of life itself cannot be random, that it must be caused by a deliberate action of an omnipotent being. [2] This is often presented as an analogy, comparing the universe to a watch and God to a watchmaker. This analogy claims that just as a complex watch cannot just fall into existence, neither can the universe; there must be a creator. Many scientists, as PRO points out, would point to the Big Bang Theory as the reason for the existence of all things. The idea of the Big Bang Theory cannot be taken as fact, however, because there is no way to prove that it is true. [3] Both the Christian explanation and the CURRENT scientific explanation are plausible, while neither can be proven true or false. Both ideas must be taken on faith. Is there sufficient evidence to believe that there is a God based on the information above? That would be relative to the person reading it, just as the Big Bang Theory may or may not provide sufficient evidence that there is not a need for a god. It is not fair to say that there is a lack of evidence for Christianity when the only evidence the opponent provides is the faith of a different community of people. I believe I have given enough reason to believe that PRO"s assertion is not necessarily a true one, leaving him with the task of proving otherwise. To clarify my point, I assert that extensive evidence and proof are not requirements to believe that something is true. The only requirements that would justify (not prove) someone"s belief are that the belief is possible and that there is no evidence to disprove the belief. "BASED ON THE LIMITED OBSERVATIONS OF HUMANS, FACTS WHICH DO NOT CONTRADICT OTHER FACTS MUST BE ACCEPTED AS VALID, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS, BECAUSE ALL THAT HUMANS CLAIM TO BE KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON LIMITED OBSERVATION. Christianity contradicts every other religion, thus Christianity cannot yet be accepted as valid. The burden of proof rests on Christians in this case." The Big Bang Theory, while widely accepted, has not been proven to be fact and contradicts the teachings of several religions; therefore, based on the above statement made by PRO, the Big Bang Theory cannot be accepted as valid. As I said before, in a normal debate about religion, the burden of proof is on the side of the religious; however, in this instance, it is not correct to claim that Christianity is false simply due to a lack of evidence. Doing so would, in turn, force one to assume that every claim made about the beginning of our universe to be invalid as none of them have been proven fact, and most of them contradict the others. [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [2] http://www.everystudent.com... [3] http://science.nationalgeographic.com...