The existence of gods

I assume my opponent accepts my definition and resolution by saying nothing against them. I wish to split my case into two parts, evidence for God, and evidence against the currently leading theory of evolution; biological and cosmological. My arguments substantiating my case for a supernatural entity will address the issues: 1) God is a reasonable conclusion based on evidence compared to alternate hypotheses. 1.1) Arguments for God 1.1.1) a posteriori evidence 1.1.1.1) Cosmological argument 1.1.1.2) Biological argument 1.1.1.2.1) DNA 1.1.1.2.2) Irreducible complexity 1.1.1.3) inexplicable order argument 1.1.2) a priori evidence 1.1.2.1) Anslem's Ontological argument 1.1.2.2) Defence of Anslem's developed Ontological argument 1.1.2.3) Watchmaker argument 1.1.2.4) Defence of Watchmaker argument 1.2) 'Unscientificness' of alternate hypotheses (big bang) 1.3) Lack of knowledge attainable via 5 senses allows supernatural and paints the atheist as a hypocrite 2) One or more supernatural entities better explain the first cause than other alternate hypotheses. 3) It takes less faith to believe a supernatural entity can exist than it does other alternate hypotheses. Against: 1) Evidence against Big bang 2) Observations conflict with the evolutionary model 2.1) Fossil record 2.2) Planets in the solar system 3) Secular hypotheses contradict laws of thermodynamics and abiogenesis 3) There is no reason to believe in evolution Before I present my case however, I would like to show how inconsistent my opponent's argument was. "There is no reason to believe that gods exist" As stated in his first post and again in his second, my opponent supports the assertion that since there is no reason to believe in God, God will be considered non-existent until proven elsewise. I don't mind debating for informational purposes only, but I do wish this to remain in the spirit of a debate, so I request my opponent to fulfil his BoP and argue for his contention: Prove there is no reason to believe in a God. In my opponent’s last post, a fallacy is presented in the form of a discrepancy between his reasoning and the nature of this debate he issued himself. Unicorns. Are they sufficient reasons to not believe in God? No. The existence of a unicorn can be determined via the observational instruments we have at our disposal. Since we cannot find any unicorns in physical existence, we observe the null hypothesis [1] practice and establish that until proven elsewise, unicorns cannot be detected physically. Such an application cannot be attributed and imposed upon either the Big Bang or God directly. Since science is merely knowledge attained through scientific methods, measurements and observations, the Big bang and God are non-scientific. However, any evidence that can be found for them are scientific. So we can use the null hypothesis practice as proposed by my opponent in the use of determining the validity or existence of evidence in favour of either God or BB. So my opponent’s entire last post is irrelevant to this debate and cannot be used as a supporting argument to substantiate his claim that there is no reason to conclude that a supernatural entity is a logical explanation for our existence. 1) Evidence for a supernatural entity: a posteriori evidence. Scientists are certain that this universe had a beginning. Since this matter covers another debate entirely, refer to the embedded video so we can stay on topic http://www.youtube.com... so the question is how did this universe come to be? In this debate I fully expect my opponent to continue to judge possibilities via his method of reasoning. The most supported case should be given the most credit and if there is no standing theory at all, then we accept the best we have until a reasonable proposition can be made. So in this case: BB vs God. If BB fails to explain what we want, then according to my opponent’s logic, we must accept whatever is left (until a better alternative). Which is actually pretty solid reasoning. The big bang is a vague explanation developed after someone thought they saw something that resembled the remnants of an explosion. More on that later. My main contention here is that the BB fails to explain crucial things that science will never be able to deal with. a) What was before the BB? b) How did the matter before the BB come into existence? It follows that since that matter before the BB couldn't come into existence, due to the absence of space and time, then the BB: a) Did don't happen b) Was caused by a supernatural entity I argue against for point a and against point b, but since its irrelevant to the debate, I will not pursue it any further. The fact of the matter is that either the BB did not happen or God exists. Double positive. Kalam Cosmological argument [3]: 1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause 2. The universe had a beginning 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause Premise 2 is easily proven, to stay on topic though, please refer to the video or source [3]. DNA: complexity evidence: DNA is so mind boggling that we still don’t understand everything about it. 3billion base pairs program a human in its entirety. These base pairs are wound in double helix formations and bunched into chromosomes. Repair mechanisms constantly scour the DNA for any flaw that needs fixing. [5] Such a tremendously incomprehendable system does not simply grow out of necessity. It requires an intelligent conscious to guide it. It’s like reproduction, organisms should have never have evolved it, there is no driving force behind it, and it’s too smart of an idea, like the organism sat down one day and consider the long term effects of any decision it chose to make and weighed the costs and benefits. Circular evidence: By circular I do not mean circular reasoning like geochronology. DNA is made by proteins, proteins are made by DNA in return, and there is nothing to start this process except a sudden complete and functioning start. [5] So how can you explain the existence of DNA in an organism? Evolution has yet to explain. Irreducible complexity: The standard rebuttal against the argument of irreducible complexity crumbles when shown that most complex organisms have required an intelligent conscience in order to reach its final/current state of complexity. So with that in mind, let’s consider the human eye. Evolutionists say that it started off as a single light sensitive cell. Now what’s the problem? If a single organism started off with a single light sensitive cell, it is no better off than the rest of the competitors to survive. The amount of organisms that would have had to have developed this cell as well would defy reasonable probability and logic. As well as the problem of an evolving eye being as useless as a bee or bird with its wings still evolving, there is a lack of driving force required for that organism to be able to complete the evolution. The body doesn't want a developing eye, it wants something to use. So if we were to consider the eye, and take any single part out, it would cease to function, contrary to evolution, which says that it should have vestigial members, the eye is so complex that any simpler, and it would be useless. Teleological argument: Everything has been made just right for life here on earth. If just one minor thing was different, we could not exist. Earth was no accident, it was designed for life. Read more here: http://www.icr.org... I will produce the second half of my case in the next round. My opponent must support his case against God. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://operation513.blogspot.com.au... [4] http://archive.innovation.gov.au... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...