You are invited to attempt to prove the existence of your god

My opponent seems unclear of their own view on the purpose of science. Pro has again faltered in their understanding - atheism is a rejection of theistic claims and while science certainly helps when it comes to refuting, for example, creationist claims of a young earth, logic and reasoning are major players given that no person can absolutely prove a god does or does not exist. Frustratingly, Pro is erroneously stating that science is based on faith " this could not be further from the truth. Again Pro has faltered in their reasoning " my opponent is implying that as nobody was there to witness the big bang, it is irrational to believe it happened. Pro has unwittingly unravelled their own stance - "ideas that things can start without a beginning have no proof and are not rational" - by this logic, Pro's own belief in a god is irrational.. Pro's rationale can be likened to holding the view that because one was not there to witness the birth of their parents, it would be irrational to believe ones own parents exist/existed. Thankfully there is evidence that I have parents, just like there is evidence for the big bang, regardless of whether one was there to witness the catalyst that caused these things to be. Pro has again misunderstood the science they try to speak with authority on. I would simply ask - if scientific laws cannot be tested, how would they come to be law in the first place? The concept of love is a man-made one, what I hold to be 'love' may differ drastically from what another does. Pro may have a different interpretation of evolution but this does not diminish the facts in the slightest degree. Pro mentions a concept that is alien to me - 'atheistic theory' - as I have stated before; atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. I would kindly ask Pro to direct me to these claims and explain the term 'atheistic theory'. So far I have been presented with no tangible evidence to support the existence of a god. I am presented only with subjective 'proof' and faulty reasoning. Pro's next approach, regarding the material mind, amounts to nothing more than word salad. An entire paragraph has been devoted to this yet once again I am presented with no proof to support a god claim. As a rebuttal and a means of provoking though within Pro, I would ask, given that Pro's line of reasoning is horribly narrow-minded, how does Pro know there is a brain within their skull given that Pro has not 'saw, smelt, heard, tasted or touched' it? Pro then goes on to talk about the spiritual mind. The rhetoric is truly a pleasure to read however we are still no closer to receiving tangible evidence for the existence of a deity. I am provided with yet more subjective rebuttals. Now perhaps the most stunning line of all is my opponents closing statement - "[...] they go towards proving that we are not random at all." I shall dedicate an entire paragraph to my rebuttal. The crux of my opponents argument, derived from the idea of a material mind versus a spiritual mind, can be summed up in the above line I have quoted regarding the idea of 'randomness'. It can be said that our human minds, our brains, are a product of evolution. Scientific pursuit tells us we as a species are here through evolution. Now Pro states "we are not random". Pro clearly does not realize that natural selection is not random and has therefore inadvertently complimented the theory of evolution, and more importantly my stance, in their own argument. I will sum up my point as follows - 1. Evolution is fact 2. We, as a species, are here through evolution 3. Science is an advocate of evolution theory 4. Pro erroneously believes science holds the view that we are here through random chance 5. Pro ironically uses their misunderstanding of this in an attempt to fortify their god claim 6. Natural selection is NOT random 7. This is a scientific claim and fact no less 7. Pro has inadvertently fortified my stance and horrifically tainted their own argument