I claim there is no God

Since it's not for points or a "win", I believe it will be more educational, rational and sincere than a debate that was intended for points. I'd just like to say, on a side note, that I find it strange that in my opponent's bio, under "Religion" it says "not saying", yet the shirt on his profile pictures says it all. I'm glad my opponent chose to include a quote from from Blaise Pascal. He's the same man that came up with the famous "Pascal's Wager", which has already been debunked many times. . http://www.youtube.com... My opponent also claims I have free will to believe what I want. Both God's foreknowledge and my decision must always match up. If I chose A then God's foreknowledge must be A. If God's foreknowledge is A then my decision must be A. If one changes, the other must also change. If I decide to do B instead of A, the foreknowledge will be B instead of A. If the foreknowledge changes to B, then the decision has to change to B. Now, once a decision has been made, you can't go back and change it. If I choose A, that choice must always be A. God is almighty. He can force me to choose B, instead, change his foreknowledge to B or even go back and change A to B. Since God has the absolute power to make the change and I don't, The moment God makes a change, I lose my free will. In order for me to have free will, God must never make a change. Will God give up his almighty power in order for me to keep my free will? No, because then he wouldn't be almighty anymore. Now, if I somehow had the power to go back in time and change my choice, I would be changing God's foreknowledge, thus rendering God to something less than almighty. With this logic you can say that either nobody has free will, time travel is impossible and God is almighty or God is not almighty, time travel is possible and we all have free will. Now to what my opponent plans to do: He will give legal / historical evidence for the existence of God. Legal/historical evidence must be verifiable. If my opponent plans on using the Bible as historical evidence, I will remind him that for evidence to be legal, it must be proved. Can the authors of the Bible be verified? Can what is said in the Bible be proved to be true? Can the translation of the Bible be proved to be accurate? Which version of the Bible is most accurate and why? If there are other documents outside the Bible that can be verified, I'd be interested in them. He will give scientific evidence about the complexity of creation that points to an intelligent designer. Science has come up with theories that can prove that what exists can happen without any designer. Even if a God existed, he would be a useless God, since he wouldn't be needed to "create" anything. The old "something from nothing" arguments are not valid, since the Universe came from a singularity (not nothing) and nobody has actually ever examined a "nothing" for something to come from. He will give eye witness (sic) testimony of people familiar with God. Eyewitness testimony is not very reliable, You can have 5 eyewitnesses to a car accident, for example, and get 5 different versions of it. The claim that "The sheer volume of testimony of people who met with God is hard for an intelligent person to dismiss. " is a logical fallacy known as "ad Populem" (an appeal to the majority). He will point to some of the philosophical evidence for the existence of God. Philosophy is just that; philosophy. .. not evidence. Interesting thoughts, but nothing else. "Deep consideration". .. still isn't evidence. Also, personal experience is not demonstrable evidence. It may be proof for an individual, but useless to prove something to others. My opponent also says, "I expect him to present his reasons for claiming that there is no God. " First of all, I'm not claiming there is no God. As my opponent pointed out, "CON refutes my claim that God exists". The rules of the debate state that "The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim (pro). " My reasons for refuting any claims for a God is the lack of evidence. "I suggest that CON should give compelling reasons for 4 -6 billion theists to abandon what they know to be true. " That's another ad populem fallacy. Also, they don't KNOW God to be true. They BELIEVE God to be true. So, I do have an honest desire to know God better. I look forward to the evidence my opponent wants to present. If my opponent can truly prove that a God exists, I'm sure he will be eligible for the next Nobel Prize.