There is no evidence supporting the existence of the biblical god.

And don't worry about any errors in premise. We all make them with our first debates. However, I find that he is trying to disprove the evidence with hypothesis, arguments and even opinion. But remember, all I have to do is prove 'one' piece of evidence in support (not proof) of the existence of god and I fulfill my BOP. And as my opponent concedes the point on 'testimony' being evidence, there is no real point in me debating further. But because I'm a good sport, and I respect Pro and his efforts, I will continue for the sake of enlightenment. Cosmological Argument: Unfortunately my opponent misses the key phrase, "Finite and contingent beings have a cause. " As the biblical God is defined as neither finite nor contingent, my opponent's arguments ad infinitum do not stand. And an infinite chain of natural events cannot be a prime mover, because if you have infinite, it means infinite in all directions of time. If you have an endless stream of points in time preceding this moment, you can never, logically, arrive at this moment. Thus the earth never would have reached causation. "b. Kalems argument is refuted by quantum fluctuation. The temporary appearance of particles of energy out of nothing. " This is one of the most common mistakes in attempts to refute the KCA. Out of nothing? No. It is in a close system, with active forces and presupposed laws of energy. No matter. But not 'nothing. ' As for my opponent's arguments against the existence of god, I leave untouched. My BOP is not to prove god's existence, it is not to refute doubts raised about it either. It is simply to supply evidence supporting his existence (evidence that can be significantly outweighed by evidence against his existence. I never contested this point). And as for my opponent's argument "I created a painting the other day that is finite and created, yet I am not. " Are you suggesting you are not finite and created? This is obviously not true. And once again for my opponent's next point, I am not going to dispute that there is evidence against god's existence. But by theory, if you can find evidence refuting something, then by definition there must be evidence supporting it as well. Because you cannot disprove a negative. And as for Ontological, Moral assertions: my evidence has to be neither convincing or irrefutable. It simply has to be plausible and supportive of the existence of god. It fulfills both these counts and thereofre upholds my BOP. Personal testimony"Using this as evidence means that we had evidence of a flat Earth a few hundred years ago. We have evidence for bigfoot and not to mention the millions of young children that offer evidence for Santa each and every year. Argumentum ad Populum. " Well my opponent's first assertion about a flat Earth is false. It is not a personal testimony, it was a hypothesis. As for bigfoot and Santa, I agree. These are both perfect examples of how evidence can support something hard to believe in. And so yes, I agree, we do have evidence for Santa and bigfoot. Not proof albeit. But evidence all the same. This supports my BOP. OtherThe 2nd law of theromodynamics applies to a closed system. Since the Earth receives energy from the sun it is not closed and this law does not apply. " It does apply as this law can be directed at not the 'earth' but the 'universe. ' Which is a closed system. Conclusion: I thank my opponent for his efforts despite the bleak outlook. And it is true, I had a very small BOP to uphold in this debate and I have done so quite easily. He made a forgivable mistake in not defining and in making a broad statement. But defended vigorously nonetheless and I commend him for it. However, as this debate was set up for him to lose by himself, I find that I have easily succeeded in proving that there is evidence (not conclusive and not proof) supporting (not proving without contest) the existence of god.