It is possible that God does not exist

Allow me to write some rebuttals to your rebuttals: 1. Your statement: Quantum Mechanics has so many holes in it. This is false. This is so completely false. Quantum mechanics is one of the most well-tested theories of all-time. There has never been a properly performed experiment which has proved any axiom of Quantum Mechanics to be false (I would provide a reference but there are too many, seriously just try and prove something from QM that has ever been proven wrong....there is nothing). Ironically one of the articles my opponent uses as a reference has the following quote: "Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory..."-(T. Folger, "Quantum Shmantum") Even his own references disagree with his view of quantum theory. 2. Your statement: The Big Bang has a lot of holes in it as well. A). Quantum physics is not unreliable, it is at times imprecise but never, I repeat never, unreliable. B). The idea of not knowing where the singularity came from is not a weakness of the Big Bang because you have no idea where your deity came from. Atheists and Christians have the same problem in this respect. Also the debate is on whether or not the universe NEEDED a deity to be created and since we have the same problem this is actually a plus for me. 3. That is not at all true. Dark Energy and Dark Matter do exist, we know this. Something is there and we have near certain knowledge of this. Its a little like how we knew that there was a nucleus in the atom before we could see it, we could tell through experimentation that there was something there. 4. This is pseudo-science. The passage you quoted was from a blogger named Tanya Techie (this is the article http://thetechreader.com...) who is a blogger and not a scientist (in other words my opponent has quoted a person lacking any scientific degree who believes that the Big Bang Theory is a scam perpetrated by scientist just to screw with us). This "scientist" clearly misunderstands the Second Law of Thermodynamics in point four. She is not a scientific authority and should not be listened to. 5. QUANTUM THEORY IS NOT UNRELIABLE! I'm not even sure why you say that it is (sorry if I sound rude here this gets me worked up). It has been validated in thousands upon thousands of experiments. There is absolutely no basis for mistrusting Quantum Theory. Scientists did not create Quantum Theory just to screw with you....it actually works. In my opinion, I have successfully found a flaw in each of my opponent's rebuttals and will now be moving on to rebutting his arguments. ______________________________________________________________ First off, I'd like to note that the burden of proof in this argument is on my opponent as he has to prove absolutely that God must have existed where I only have to prove that he may have not existed. Since even his arguments do not attempt to absolutely prove that God must have existed (he says quote "seems to be the best theory" not unequivocally is the best). I do not really have to rebut any of his arguments.....But I will anyway. REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT 1: This paper is more of a theoretical math paper than a physics paper. The authors replace Geodesic trajectories with Quantal Bohmian trajectories. This can be seen in one of their opening sentences: "It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE)."-(Cosmology from Quantum Potential) This is not great physics. This is the equivalent of saying assume a singularity cannot be formed (this is corollary to the replacement of classical geodesics because quantal trajectories do not allow convergence). Also the testable predictions from this paper do not work unless you allow the Graviton to have a mass which is not predicted by the Standard Model. This paper is pseudo-scientific, perhaps if I was nice I would call it theoretical. REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT 2: Michio Kaku cleverly makes use of "primitive semi-radius tachyons" which is not a thing. Seriously, search primitive semi-radius tachyons, the only results you will yield are all references to this quote. "Primitive semi-radius tachyons" have never been used in any legitimate physics research paper. REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT THREE: I could break this argument apart but I think my reference proving this quote to be entirely false will do a better job. Read http://the-orbit.net... Thanks. REBUTTAL OF ARGUMENT 4: Firstly, Albert Einstein did not believe in a god. To quote the great atheist Richard Dawkins "Einstein was repeatedly indignant at being labeled as a theist" (Dawkins, The God Delusion). Secondly, Carl Sagan did not believe in a god. He was an agnostic. To quote Carl Sagan "I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god" (to Robert Pope, Oct. 2, 1996). Thirdly, 93 percent of the scientists on The National Academy of Scientists are either atheist or agnostic so there is a much larger precedent for atheism in science than there is theism. There are too many atheist scientists to name but take a look at this incomplete list (https://en.wikipedia.org...). That concludes my argument best of luck to my opponent. REFREFENCES: -My brain 1. http://the-orbit.net... 2. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 3. http://www.universetoday.com...