It is possible that God does not exist

I won't post any arguments in this round (Due to the opponent not being able to respond), However I will re-butte to certain statements. Rebuttals: 1. Quantum Mechanics My opponent claims... "This is false. This is so completely false. Quantum mechanics is one of the most well-tested theories of all-time." I beg to differ. These (and multiple other articles) claim quantum mechanics to be wrong or unreliable. 1. http://brainmargarine.blogspot.com... 2. http://physics.aps.org... 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://discovermagazine.com... And quantum mechanics does have many holes in it, such as the measurement problem which questions how wave-function collapse occurs. We have no answer for this, despite it being an important part of quantum mechanics, making quantum mechanics unreliable. 2. The Big Bang My opponent claims... " you have no idea where your deity came from." Sadly you didn't bring this up when debating, we could have debated it. The explanation is, God didn't come into existence, he always was, is, and will forever be. In other words he has always existed. The bible claims this. Also the beauty of omnipotence (The power to do anything) means, if you don't believe he always existed, he could've created himself. Because I know where my God came from, and you don't know where your singularity came from, this is in-fact a plus for me. 3. Dark Matter My opponent claims... "Dark Energy and Dark Matter do exist, we know this. Something is there and we have near certain knowledge of this." This is simply false. We haven't found dark matter at all. Here is an article, somewhat recent to, that claims dark matter has not been found. Article: http://phys.org... In the article, the only reason he says dark matter exists is because of the way the universe formed. However he hasn't found or tested any at all, which is strange for something that makes up a large percent of our universe. 4. Article This was simply a reference for me, and scientist or not Tenchie brings up some good points. However it was only a reference and I didn't use this in an argument, therefore it shouldn't be a problem. 5. Quantum theory Look at rebuttal number 1. 6. Rebuttal argument 1 The only math it ever mentions is when speaking of the mathematics of general relativity. You even say the quote you posted is about physics, not mathematics right under it. You also claim... "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." I respond with this quote... "In theoretical physics , the GRAVITON is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory " Source: http://www.theinfolist.com... I think it's strange you call my argument theoretical, when the definition of a Gravition says it is used in theoretical physics, and the particle itself is hypothetical. This is why I try to avoid quantum mechanics, as it is theoretical and unreliable. 7. Rebuttal argument 2 I'll give this one to you, I didn't realize he talked about "primitive semi-radius tachyons". 8. Rebuttal argument 3 You post a link about a Tech Guy talking about how the planets are formed. If I can't use Mrs. Tanya Techie in my references, you shouldn't use this guy in your arguments. He is a tech guy not a scientist. As for his arguments, here are my replies/rebuttals... 1. It was still recorded. (Even if it wasn't with the Hubble telescope). 2. Grammatical errors, even when annoying, don't disprove anything. 3. God could have made other stars besides the sun (the meaning of the phase "let there be light"), and then made the sun to rotate earth, to tell day and night (exactly as said in genesis). Honestly, this guy needs to read more Genesis, despite his self-proclaimed knowledge of it, he seemed to know very little. Nothing was proven in this article, thus my argument still stands. 9. Rebuttal argument 4 As for Einstein, my opponent puts up... "Einstein was repeatedly indignant at being labeled as a theist" (Dawkins, The God Delusion). However, here is a quote from Einstein himself... "The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who " in their grudge against the traditional religion as the "opium of the masses" " cannot hear the music of the spheres." (Einstein) From reading this you can tell Einstein was not an atheist. Einstein didn't believe in a god that loved for you and answers your prayers, but he did believe in a god/deity that created the universe, which still means he believed in a god. This is also is why he hated being called a theist. Here is a quote from an article taking about several letters about religion Einstein had wrote... " Einstein"s religion, if you have to put a label to it, is a sort of nebulous Deism: Maybe God played in role in creating the universe " because nature inspires such awe and the universe seems perfectly guided by mathematics" Source: http://www.patheos.com... It shows above, that Einstein did believe in god, contrary to my opponents belief. Also to counter the list of atheist scientists my opponent put up, here is a list of christian ones. Article: https://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion: This concludes my rebuttals. I wish luck to my opponent, and now we let the voters decide. I will now sign off. Vote Con! References: 1. http://brainmargarine.blogspot.com... 2. http://physics.aps.org... 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://discovermagazine.com... 5. http://phys.org... 6. http://www.theinfolist.com... 7. http://www.patheos.com... 8. https://en.wikipedia.org...