It is reasonable to believe that God doesn't exist

INTRO I’m sorry to the readers who can clearly see my opponent isn’t even reading my arguments. I will try to sort through his horrendous walls of text and extract something of substance. REBUTTALS Argument from Scripture I'l simply have to leave it up to the voters at thispoint, because I don’t have space to counter each particular rebuttal my opponent made. I will however rebutt two lines. “My opponent said himself that he cannot prove what he stated, therefore his statement remains invalid. ” Way to take me out of context. You cannot prove what you have stated either. We can only weigh up our arguments on clarity, reason and the credibility of our cited sources and theories. It is reasoning like this… “This does not prove that Intelligent Design is false, it only proves intelligent design was such compelling evidence for Creationism that the school banned it fearing that more would be converted to an idea of God. ” …and the way you use the word ‘prove’ that shows how little logic you’re applying to your argument. What you’re saying does not compute. “It is really ironic how my opponent states that creation science is completely one sided without even daring to read a simple site I have requested that he read. For one thing I believe my opponent is too one sided and request to have an open mind. ” The fact I didn’t rebutt your 7,500 word Creationist source is not a reflection of my failings in this debate. I have an open mind, it just isn’t opened wide enough to accept disproven, illogical nonsense in as fact. I ask my opponent: if God truly had a hand in the way the Bible has come out, why not put some piece of irrefutable knowledge into it? Why not make some impossibly accurate prediction about the future? Arguments from Morality Now you’re just being lazy. You’re talking about moral absolutism; something is right or wrong and there are no questions about it, right? You’re dancing around my hypothetical because you’re too scared to admit you fear your God’s eternal wrath more than you care for your loved ones. If someone is there, in front of you, threatening your family, what do you do? Armed attackers have broken in to your house and they’re dragging your wife and daughter away to rape them. Do you say to yourself: “its ok, God will sort it out, they’ll go to hell when they die in 60 years…” or “the Law will sort it out, these men will go to prison after they’ve busted a nut in my wife’s arse and slit my daughter throat. .. ”? You know these things happen in the world and that God won’t stop them and the Law can’t undo crimes that have already happened. Where is your God’s perfect morality when you alone can act ‘immorally’ and prevent harm? I vigorously reject the idea of absolute morality. I reserve the right to kill you if it will prevent harm coming to my loved ones. Argument from Ignorance: Now Evolution versus Creationism “I ask my opponent to elaborate on his statement; how does the level of validity vary? ” It’s very simple. The validity varies based on the credibility of the sources you’re citing to support your arguments. I don’t have to debate creationism versus evolution. It’s a moot point. Evolution has nothing to say about how life started or the Big Bang or any of the other straw man arguments that your ridiculous sources make. Evolution explains how life got from one point to another and it does this very, very well. Abiogenesis is another story, which I have never denied. It is a very accomplished theory, accepted in many academic circles. Of course, with the moving goal post of Creationism, even if it proven by experiment, Creationists can always argue “God made the cells like that” or something. I know this next line is probably going to be taken out of context, but Creationism is difficult to disprove, due to the magical thinking of its supporters. ARGUMENTS Argument from Faith: Science versus Religion This is the point that I have been moving towards with my previous arguments… Faith, noun: Belief that is not based on proof. In other words, trust in God. There is no faith with science as an essential part of the scientific method is obtaining evidence to support your hypothesis. My opponent has faith. He trusts that his understanding of the Bible is the correct one; that his choice of Baptist Church is the correct one, over say Roman Catholicism. If God does exist and he is incorrect in his theological choices, well… his fate will match mine. I have no faith and I couldn’t obtain it even if I tried. Personal anecdote: I was raised by in a secular family in what is essentially a secular country. My parents and all my adult role models growing up were Atheists. My mind has been warped by the ideas of logic and reason. By definition, faith is without these things. Let me ask my opponent, what has done more for humanity in the past five hundred years: Science or Religion? I trust in Science as a whole; the scientific community and the methodology practised rigidly by its followers. It isn’t blind trust though. I don’t go around spouting that the Big Bang is fact because it hasn’t been proven yet: it’s a theory built on evidence derived from our extremely limited knowledge of the Universe. CONCLUSION It is my burden of proof to show that it is reasonable to believe God doesn’t exist. The most logical reason not to believe in God is the lack of a body of evidence to support his existence. Science doesn’t need God to explain anything. It hypothesises the origins of Life and the Universe not with the supernatural, but with physics, biological, cosmology and the wealth of other credible branches of Science. And why do I trust Science over Religion? I reject faith and substitute reason and logic.