An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

I fear this debate is quickly devolving to the point that one side is so deeply entrenched in their illogical views they are unable to see reason. I'd imagine that Con will say this is my side, while I will say it is theirs. The problem is that my side is backed up by thorough, researched, scientific evidence that forms a consensus among thousands and thousands of established scientists across the world. Con, on the other hand, offers nothing of the variety and is simply spewing conjecture, invalid circumstantial evidence, and generally illogical claims. I want to particular point to the part where Con says, "To prove the existence of the biblical God, I would need to give evidence for that. But I don"t think we"ll have any space or time to do so." This point is absolutely essential to Con's entire argument for the existence of God as he/she defines him. Declining to prove this by saying there isn't space or time to do so is a remarkable failure in discourse. I would urge anyone voting to suspend all consideration for Con's arguments until he/she puts forth at least a summary of a satisfactory answer to this point. An overwhelming majority of Con's arguments take the form of: X cannot currently be explained --> It can only be explained by God --> the God I believe in must be the creator of the universe. I don't think it will take anything more than a cursory examination for readers to realize that Con completely fails to even attempt to speak to bridging the most important gap in their logic.Nonetheless, let's go step-by-step:"not only Turek himself has said that we can use all of this information for ourselves, but he even provides it in examine.org."I never said that you committed a crime by passing off Turek's arguments as your own. I simply said it was disingenuous, fraudulent, and generally disrespectful to this entire community"These are all things that are true regardless of Turek's opinion"Seeing as you have not done a mildly satisfactory job of proving any of these things to be true, this seems a bit presumptuous."That"s known as God. The standard by which we judge all things and is true regardless of human opinion. Objective."There are, quite literally, hundreds of millions, if not billions of people who disagree with your view on God. That is practically the antithesis of objectivity."Then you mention "Turek"s" argument that the cause must be spaceless, immaterial, and timeless. It"s only true if Turek says so..."I am quite certain I said nothing of the sort."I believe I"ve refuted your points well."I couldn't disagree more."To prove the existence of the biblical God, I would need to give evidence for that. But I don"t think we"ll have any space or time to do so."I would urge anyone voting to suspend all consideration for Con's arguments until he/she puts forth at least a summary of a satisfactory answer to this point. (As stated above)"Genesis is a poetic account of the world..."If by poetic, you mean falsifiably contradictory, I would agree. Let's, for a second, ignore the litany of evidence found in palaeontology, evolutionary biology, fundamental geology, archaeology, etc. Let's just look at some of the inherent flaws of the story of Creation within the Good Book. As anyone familiar with the Bible knows, there are actually two Creation stories within Genesis (Genesis 1:1-2:3 ; Genesis 2:4-25). Between these 2 accounts, there are 2 different orders given for the days of creation. Surely a divine creator who was all-knowing and all-powerful would have ensured that the accounts present in a holy book, just a few pages apart, would be compatible We know that God created the Sun in the middle of the "week" (16: So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars). Here we run into some issues: Without a sun, how were the first 3 days measured? Without a sun, the Earth's rotation would be meaningless from a temporal sense. There would be no "night" and there would be no "morning". According to Genesis, plants were created before the Sun. I don't think there is a biologist in the world who feels that all plants can live sufficiently long without sunlight. Con later states that it's possible we are currently in the 7th day i.e. God's rest. If that were the case, and each "day" of creation was actually billions of years, how would plants have survived long enough to obtain sunlight? I must ask at this point, why did God create the Sun at all? Did we not have light already from the 1st day of creation? Perhaps you say that in all of God's glory, he does not need a Sun to measure time and give light and grow plants. I don't know how the logical community would feel about this, but I would then have to ask why it was created at all of its purpose was already being fulfilled God allegedly "rested" on the "7th day". Why would an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipotent being require such rest? Perhaps to this you argue that God did not actually need "rest", he just wanted the 7th day set aside as a holy day. But, I thought God was all-powerful, all-knowing, and the source of absolute truth. Surely, if this were the case, he wouldn't have actually had to "rest" himself in order to establish the 7th day as being holy "Since the sacrifice of Jesus has happened, and the work has been done"Is the suggestive of Con believing, scientifically and logically, in the crucifixion, death, and subsequent resurrection of Jesus? As a debater, you must agree that, based on the principle of proportionality, extraordinary evidence should be required for extraordinary claims with the amount of the former being in proportion to the degree of the latter. Approximately 100 billion people have lived between the inception of humanity and modern day. Except for the ~7 billion people currently alive, all of them have died. Of those that died, none have returned or been resurrected. As such, the claim that a specific person, Jesus, who just so happens to be the son of the exact God that Con defends, should require enormous, well-verified, scientific evidence to be supported. If Con could kindly provide, that would be greatly appreciated.Of course, if Con opts to say that the story of the resurrection of Jesus was not accurate in some way, that would lend to the issue of why any of us should believe that the story of Creation is completely accurate."If the universe didn't"t have a beginning"I never said it didn't have a beginning. I said that it did not begin with an invisible deity designing the whole of the cosmos."So the fact that they sun will one day burn out, is evidence that at one point it had more than before."Let's consider the case of an unused light bulb, fresh out of a box, never turned on. I place it in a lamp and get ready to turn it on. At the instant the light first flickers on, it will begin its descendence toward burning out. However, in no way would anyone think that, at the exact moment it was turned on, there somehow was a preceding point when it had more potential energy."So everything had a beginning."As with almost all of your points, this doesn't prove the existence of God and most definitely does not specifically prove the God of the Bible."What can be space less, immaterial, and timeless? Surely nothing in our universe. So it must be a force outside of time and space."I say again, as with almost all of your points, this doesn't prove the existence of God and most definitely does not specifically prove the God of the Bible."So there is something above humanity then."This also does not prove the existence of the God of the Bible (if any God at all)"You just quoted Einstein, who is not a Christian, admitting that the universe is so precise that it supports a creator."It is highly concerning to me that you took my Einstein quote and somehow took it to be evidence of the existence of God. I think this is the most disturbing quality displayed by religious people today."But if it"s true, again, Hitler was doing the exact right thing by climbing up the ladder of evolution."It seems like a gross mischaracterization of moral relativism to say that Hitler was doing the "exact" right thing. Perhaps (in the eyes of proponents of that theory), he was doing the correct thing in a local sense in the particular context and culture he lived in. But I don't think there are any philosophers or ethicists who would take kindly to your assertion here."If there"s no judgement, who cares?"(Broken record alert) - This also does not prove the existence of the God of the Bible"slavery had nothing to do with race, and it was not forced. It was completely voluntary."Slavery is almost, by definition, involuntary. Though there were some rare cases of voluntary debt-servitude in the Old Testament, that was not the norm and it only applied to Hebrew males."There either is objective morality, or not. Simple. You either agree, or disagree."Neither side of this coin proves the existence of God, let alone your God, so I move to strike."How is evolution going to tell you what to do if it"s just reacting to previous natural forces you have no control over?"Again, I ask how this proves the existence of the God you believe in."I also haven"t quoted him without giving him credit."Here are just two of the many times you quoted him without giving credit: "The shadows prove the sunshine. There would be no shadows unless there was sunshine. You can have sunshine without shadows, but there wouldn't be shadows unless there was sunshine" "If we're just overgrown germs, that got here by evolution, then we are no different than another animal." There are a lot of fallacious arguments here. However, the biggest overarching theme is: how do any of Con's points prove that his God exists?Thank you.