Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.

I want to recap for the sake of clarity.1. PRO has the BOP This means pro has to produce evidence for the non existence of God.2. Pro claims “Science currently explains most natural phenomena”3. Pro claims that “Non-believers are capable of moral behavior, so God obviously isn't required for that. ”4. Pro claims “There is no evidence or need for God's existence. ”As evidence for God’s existence I offer1. History of people’s testimony of encounters with and belief in God. Pro failed to respond to this eye witness testimony of their experience except to say that their testimony is false (myth was the exact word) and to dismiss it. [no evidence for PRO]2. Evidence of people who claim an encounter with God are greatly changed by the experience. Pro suggests that these people might be drugged or hallucinating. [no evidence for PRO]3. Living eye witnesses who tell of their encounter with God. Pro suggests that “People can be easily fooled, so testimony enough is not sufficient” [no evidence for PRO]4. Cosmological arguments These have a long history of serious consideration. Pro claims that “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. ” has been disproved by quantum vacuum fluctuation (the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space) forgetting that this requires space-time. Space-time had to come into being before these quantum vacuum fluctuation could happen. The KCA says that space-time itself has a cause. Pro has not refuted the KCA with this faulty assertion. [no evidence for PRO]5. Ontological arguments Pro tries a one sentence refutation of all ontological arguments. I do not hold this against his position as I mentioned these arguments as a class for completeness.6. Teleological arguments, or arguments from design. These are where PRO gets in trouble. I mention the following broad classes of design arguments: - The watch maker -. - Irreducible Complexity - - Fine Tuning of biology and physics - this did not happen by random chance. Pro responds with “Those arguments are easy to dispute, and have been disputed many times. ” [no evidence for PRO]7. God’s self revelation to individuals and cultures. Pro offers no response to this. [no evidence for PRO] Looking at some of PRO’s arguments from science. Pro suggests “Humans have a lot of traits that aren't actually necessary” PRO does not say how this reflects on God’s existence, nor does he explain how this supports his argument. As evidence he claims: a) Men have nipples. - One function for these is sexual pleasure b) Human appendix This is found to be quite functional c) Human eye orientation suggests evolutionary process If it is bad design why do we design telescopes and cameras the same way? d) Junk DNA More and more the non coding DNA is found to have regulatory functions. Pro is arguing a “Darwin of the gaps” position where every gap (things pro can’t explain) is philosophically attributed to “Evolution. ” Since PRO’s “appeal to science” above has been successfully refuted with peer reviewed scientific evidence we can safely dismiss PRO’s claims. Now I would like to respond to comments PRO made in round 5Pro states “There is no published model regarding God. ” WOW - the world is full of published models of God - every theistic religion and denomination have multiple published models. Remember this was PRO’s refutation to my suggestion that he was using Occam's Razor inappropriately. He accepted my point that “In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models” [1] He is wrong that there are no published models for God’s existence. When I asked what kind of evidence PRO would accept as valid he says he will not accept most evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law. Here is what he says he will accept. “Acceptable Evidence: - Experimental evidence is always acceptable. - Testimony is acceptable ONLY if it is first-hand . . . Anything from the Bible is invalid, because those people are dead and cannot testify. . . . - Documentary evidence is acceptable ONLY if the facts within can be verified by testimony and/or physical evidence. Which means the Bible is not a valid source, as it can be verified by neither. ”This shows that PRO is looking for a narrowly defined kind of evidence. It really means he has decided to ignore my evidence, yet provide no compelling evidence of his own. Pro says he would accept “In my prayer time today I heard from God”This happens to be true, But I suspect PRO will not accept this even though he states he will. Pro tries to say he will accept documentary evidence, yet his condition “ verified by testimony and/or physical evidence” calls that statement into question. PRO goes back to his claim that “ appendix is still vestigial. ” This is false. It has a function. Pro claims to know its “original function. ” This claim is difficult to accept. PRO gives reference to a 2004 article in nature [2] that claims that mice without large portions of Junk DNA. PRO seems determined to hold on to old / bad science. There is link on the same page to an article “'Junk' DNA reveals vital role”. His link to a google search comes up with “Further evidence that noncoding DNA is vital has come from studies of genetic risk factors for disease. In large-scale searches for single-base differences between diseased and healthy individuals, about 40% of the disease-related differences show up outside of genes. ”[3] The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project suggested in September 2012 that over 80% of DNA in the human genome "serves some purpose, biochemically speakingThe last decade has show the need for non-coding DNA. “Recent studies have shown good reason to consider the gene-free portions of genomes indispensable. Various stretches of noncoding DNA have been shown to function as enhancers of gene expression” [4] Pro’s use of scientific evidence was faulty, and limited. Pro claims that “the rest of the Bible tells us sex is immoral and shameful. ” This misrepresentation of the Bible, if deliberate, is bad conduct. If from ignorance it shows a misunderstanding of God (the subject of the debate), scripture and religion. According to the Bible . . . .1. God created men and women naked and sexual together in the garden (without interruptions ;-) )2. God’s first command is “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” [5]3. Genesis 2:24-25 says “ a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. ” - there is no shame or immorality here.4. God gave us hormones and a sex drive “and it was very good” - 5. Proverbs 5:15-19 reads "rejoice with the wife of thy youth. . . . let her breasts satisfy thee at all times"6. “ The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another” - 1 Corinthians 7:3-5These show that pro does not understand the God he is trying to dispute. His “scientific evidence” call his science into question as well. VOTE CON ;-) [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor[2] . http://www.nature.com...[3] . http://www.evolutionnews.org...[4] . http://www.jgi.doe.gov...[5] Genesis 1:28