Knowledge of a God's Existence or Non-Existence is Not Possible

Hello again,Hope your morning is going as well as mine is, and without further adieu may the rebuttals being!The Argument from Rationalism:You make the argument based upon reason to establish two possible alternatives, that either matter is eternal or there exists some immaterial eternal being from which the material derives it's source. Please correct me if I read too much into the latter portion, but I believe that is where you are going since this is a God debate.I believe the problem is a bit more complex than this and involves difficult quantum mechanics such as a quantum vacuum that is anything but intuitive. With quantum vacuums it is actually possible for electrons and positrons to materliaze out of nothing in a flash and then immediately disappear. The complexity of the entity formalized determines the probability of it's materializing within the vacuum. However, over a period of billions of years or more apporpriately within a vacuum where time and space do not exist such probabilities could pretty much be counted on as an inevitability.[1]We also know that the initial stages of the Big Bang as the conversion of energy into mass to create matter and anti-matter pairs and further into subatomic particles which we know exist, leads us to also conclude that the infancy of the universe was made up of the smallest kinds of material imaginable, and that the gigantic universe filled with stars and planets is perfectly expalinable over the evolution and development of the universe by natural means.[2]Therefore, I believe there is a fundamental and key argument in opposition that is missing your assessment and thus creates a false dichotomy. I do not believe assurance can be had on the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis, but a tentative position of agnosticism is warranted on the matter and philosophical inquiry should be tempered with an understanding of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics. Making the issue even more muddled.The Argument from Design:This appears not to be an argument in favor of God, nor is it against the Theory of Evolution. Instead, this appears to be aimed at abiogenesis, and at that a particular outdated version of it based upon the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953.[3] There are actually several competing theories for abiogenesis that exist today, and one of the leading candidates is the Iron-sulfur world theory by Günter Wächtershäuser.[4] Here below is a brief summation of the hypothesis on the origin of life."The fundamental idea of the origin of life according to the iron–sulfur world theory can be simplified in the following brief characterization: Pressurize and heat a water flow with dissolved volcanic gases (e.g. carbon monoxide, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide) to 100 °C. Pass the flow over catalytic transition metal solids (e.g. iron sulfide and nickel sulfide). Wait and locate the formation of catalytic metallo-peptides."[5]This argument on your part also fails to provide evidence for design in the natural world, but simply attempts to debunk a competing hypothesis for the origin of life. Biological evolution is also independent of abiogenesis and still stands indepdently as evidence against the general argument for design outlined in my opening argument.I will also note that the mathmatic improbability of the primordial soup hypothesis was not demonstrated, therefore I must say that these are unsupported claims or at their worst conjecture.Conclusion of Rebuttal:At any rate, these arguments are built upon scientific understanding of the universe and supersede the ancient philosophical debates of the ontological variety. Since our scientific understanding of the universe is extremely limited and always improving, it is still too early to presume to know that know something as big of a deal as the existence of God. It is not unreasonable to believe in a God, and some of the reasons given by my opponent are plausible and possible. However, they fail to yield sufficient justification to warrant a claim to knowledge, and instead should be understood to be a matter of faith and opinion.Kindest Regards,TrueScotsman[1] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...