Science Refutes God

Now this is where even viewers siding with my opponent acknowledge that Con is incorrect. Many of the theories known today were created by religious figures "and" no religious figures. Einstein himself was a theist: he was a pantheist. He did not believe in a specific god like my opponent might, but Einstein believed the universe is identical with divinity/that everything composes an all encompassing, immanent God. He didn't believe in an anthropomorphic god such as Yahweh or Allah, but he believed in that the divintiy of the universe was God like and of creation. He is even quoted: "God doesn't play dice". Plus there are many scientific theories made by scientist who were once religious, and changed their mind set "because" of there discoveries. Saying that scientific theories refute god because they were made by atheists is like saying, "The bible refutes that there isn't a God because the people who wrote it believe in God". It isn't logical. A scientist would not make up a theory out of thin air just to prove that God isnt in existence. Plus, there are scientist who believe god "used" the big bang to create the universe. I watched a debate last night where christian scientist devised this concept to help support the claim that God could still exist. A concept used by a christian that orginated from an atheist??????? I thought only atheist would listen to science? Nope. Even Christian scientist acknowledge the evidence to the big bang theory and evolution. They just believe it was divinely inspired (though there is no evidence for that, its unfalsifiable, and therefore has no reason to discuss it going off Newton's "flaminig laser sword" analogy). And as i mentioned before, even the Catholic Church recognizes the evidence for the theories to be substantional and even allow you to adopt it into your belief in the Christian god. But as ive already said, we have enough evidence to show that a universe "can" plausibly come from nothing. And the points you made were already disprove and refuted and cannot be recognize as valid because my arguments with actual evidence and sources outside of my opinion have done so. Also going back to where my opponent said, "Scientific theories only refute god because they were made by people who don't believe in god": that is like saying, "The evidence that shows where rain comes from only works because the people who found the evidence liked the rain." There are, again, many scientist who were christian who have come up with theories and decided to become atheist. My opponent, has therefore, stated an argument based of ignorance and opinion. He has no evidence to support this claim, while I have my example of theist Albert Einstein who believed in a form of God and created well known theories such as E=mc2, and believed in the big bang theory as well. I do not insult my opponent in any way, but it is obviously clear that he is ill prepared for the argument, relying on personal opinion or information told to him with no outher source to back it up. His points have not been proven, but rathered exploited. He claims we come from fish as one who does not understand evolution would claim we came from monkeys. That point he claims to of been proven is invalid as we do not originate from fish, but rather we come from ancestors that we have shared with all to most organisms to day. We have evidence for this as well with fossils, comparitive change, and we have proved "micro-evolution" (evolution over a small period of time) to be a fact. Macro-evolution (evolution over a longer period of time) remains a strong theory, but, it still has more evidence for it than we do for the existence for god for claiming god is real or unreal is unfalsifiable. We can not prove it, "but", we can refute it based of reason and evidence in our obviously observable universe. He also asked me fro evidence for the Big Bang theory which I gave and can list the sources if neccessary if my opponents asks. And as i already explained, we dont refuse god as an answer. In fact, when science was first conceived and apparent, we tried to use science to "prove" there was a god. But science has brought us to the point where god is not a neccessary explanation for the universe nor life itself. If there was evidence of god in science, we scientist would acknowledge god in all of our works because as I have already explained we scientist are not dogmatist and will and "have" to accept any more information countering or proving theories/facts. And if my opponent's "points were proven in the first couple of rounds" as he claims they were, then how come he incorrectly assumed that a "dot just blew up and made the universe"? I corrected him by telling and giving evidence that instead the universe originated in a "small dense state" not explicitly saying what shape it was (such as a dot), and it did not "blow up", but it rather expanded rapidly without all of the "combustion of a normal explosion". And now my opponent claims he will not try anymore to counter my arguments. Does this sound like an opponent who is worth not my time, but your time reader, for you might of had better evidence to argue agaisnt me. But instead, the opponent gives up where you might of picked up better points. Does that seem fair, in your mind, that your side should lose because he does not want to "try" anymore and would rather give up? I hope this shows how ineffecient my opponent is at making points and the readers and observers of the debate will not vote for the side they support the most, but rather the side that gave the best argument and put their most forth effort into this. I thank you again fellow readers for taking time out of your day to read one of the most disputable topics ever conceived by mankind, and I hope you enjoyed it. If not, i apologize on my behalf, and my opponent's for not giving you the debate you wished for. But i hope you vote according to valid reason and not bias opinion. If you still choose to vote based off your beliefs, I will not condem you for it. It is in your will to do so. I am not you. "BUT". I sincerely hope that you vote according to how a debate works: vote on who gave the better evidence, support, and claims despite even if they are against your personal motion on the matter. Thank you for your time, and godspeed. -Pro