There is more evidence that God does not exist, than there to is prove that he does.

Thank you. And what I meant with great design, is as you said, that its 'large and complex'. And it is, as I demonstrated in my first round. Now, I can see that Pro makes some claims in his second round. I will like to address them, one by one. 'Of course, if you are initiating the argument of a designer, you must also be arguing that the Universe, and indeed, life, had a beginning. Meaning there was a point before it existed. For life, at least life on Earth, that is of course true, but for the Universe? I'm not so sure.' I'm indeed arguing that the universe had a beginning. We know scientifically that the universe began to exist with the big bang. As a teacher, you should know that. To say that the universe did not began to exist is both scientifically wrong and absurd. 'Imagine The Big Bang taking place approximately in the centre of the already existing Universe almost 14 billion years ago. Just a theory, but perhaps caused by the death of a star, or implosion of a galaxy, something of that nature. I think that it's fair to assume and perhaps has already been proven, that a significant amount of outward force was created by The Big Bang. Now imagine any and all of the elements that were around at that time being pushed further out into space by that force.... so far out that their light has yet to reach us and in all likelihood will never reach us. This theory fits in perfectly well with the scientific evidence that the Universe is expanding, thus it has to at least be considered. And, I argue, it makes much more logical and theoretical sense than a "creator". Pro claims that the universe may perhaps have been caused 'by the death of a star, or implosion of a galaxy, something of that nature.' Two problems with this: 1) No evidence 2) What or who caused that star and that galaxy then? Did it just come by itself? 3) We have seen stars die in the universe, and no star creates a universe after it dies. 4) We don't know if implosions can happen with a galaxy. We have never observed something like that. This is most of what he says here. Well, he also says that the universe is expanding, which is true, but this doesn't prove anything. Basically, Pro mostly just give non-evidenced theories here, and he doesn't disprove my case in any way. 'The point I am trying to make is that with this theory, The Big Bang was not the beginning of the Universe. It would simply have been an event, the likes of which are not too difficult to imagine happening constantly in the Universe. It is just one of a number of theories that aim to prove the Universe is eternal, by which I mean it had no beginning, hence, no creator. It has always been there and quite possibly always will be.' Pro claims two things here: 1) The Big Bang was not the beginning of the Universe This is completely wrong. The universe began to exist some 14-16 billion ago by a big bang. This is a scientific fact which you will find in any science textbook. 2) The Universe had no beggining and is eternal By saying this, Pro basically tries to destroy my whole argument. Indeed, if the universe was eternal, there would be no need for a creator. Unfurtanetely, this argument is a 19th-century Atheist fallacy. This argument doesn't stand basically because of this reason alone: The Big Bang In contrast to what Atheist's claimed, the universe was in fact not eternal. It began to exist with the Big Bang. This discovery was made by Edwin Hubble, who also discovered that the universe was expanding. Dennis Sciama described the final position they had reached after all the evidence for the Big Bang theory: 'There was at that time a somewhat acrimonious debate between some of the proponents of the steady state theory and observers who were testing it and, I think, hoping to disprove it. I played a very minor part at that time because I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true. When hostile observational evidence became to come in, Fred Hoyle took a leading part in trying to counter this evidence, and I played a small part at the side, also making suggestions as to how the hostile evidence could be answered. But as that evidence piled up, it became more and more evident that the game was up, and that one had to abandon the steady state theory.' [1] Alex Vilenkin, one of the world’s leading theoretical cosmologists, writes: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” [2] John Gribbin, an astrophysicist at Cambridge University, says: “…the discovery of the century, in cosmology at least, was without doubt the dramatic discovery made by Hubble, and confirmed by Einstein’s equations, that the Universe is not eternal, static, and unchanging.” [ibid] So, in contrast to what Pro claims, the universe had a beggining and is not eternal. To say that the universe is eternal is anyway just illogical. Sources [1] http://harunyahya.com... [2] http://www.hamzatzortzis.com...