God definitely does not exist, and the agnostic view is wrong.

My opponent states that logical contradiction is important in this debate. I do agree that logic is important in science. However the context you used logical contradiction seemed to me to express an alternative possibility to the existence of God not logic in general. You claimed that logical contradiction out ruled the need for evidence to disprove the existence of a God. This is because it it not logical. While not logical, this does not necessarily mean that a God doesn't exist at all. In science, Logic and evidence go hand in hand. There is no evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a God. If you were debating a Christian or a religious person, the arguments on both sides wouldn't be based on scientific fact. However in this debate, my belief or lack thereof doesn't require evidence because I am not making a definitive statement as you are. Yes you need to be logical in science but you also need evidence. Throughout history, what was thought to be factual and logical was disproved by fact even when talking about Aristotle.(I know you mentioned him for another reason) Copernicus and Galileo proved him wrong using evidence AND logic. My opponent once again brings up that nothing can exist outside of existence. This is firstly, only one belief among many as to where God may be. The topic of this debate is that agnostics are wrong. We don't believe that God exists outside of existence. By challenging our beliefs, by first claiming that we believe in a out of existence god, and then citing Judeo-Christian beliefs is not relevant in this debate. The topic of the debate is not that Christians are wrong and that THEIR god doesn't exist but that NO God exists. Therefore, since you claim that no god exists at all, you can't narrow down the broad subject of where he exists, whether it be outside of existence, or just outside of the physical world etc., or what type of god he may be. As an agnostic, I am not saying that he is supernatural, nor am I even stating he exists outside of the physical world. I am merely saying that without concrete evidence to back up the logical conclusion that no god exists, I cannot rule out his existence all together. Why should we "constrain ourselves to debate God as is postulated by religious people" if we are not debating religions but the lack thereof. This is more scientific than religious. Many of your arguments in this debate including that last one would be better served against a Christian or another religious person. You said you wanted to debate an agnostic, so you will not be able to narrow down what type of god to debate about. I am simply saying that a god, anywhere, in any form MAY exist, because no scientific evidence has disproved or proved this. I am also not stating that the existence of a god is logical. However, it is not entirely impossible either. The entire concept of our universe is about as overwhelming and logical as the existence of a god. This is because as you've stated you can't create nothing from nothing. Just like we don't know for sure if a god exists, we aren't even entirely sure how the universe started or what was here before that, and before that etc. It is logical to say that the universe as we know it started with the big bang, but what was before that is unknown. There is an endless amount of possibilities as to how the universe may have started. Just as there is an endless amount of possibilities as to where a god may be, or what type of god he may be. One of these possibilities is your belief that no god exists at all. As an agnostic we believe that anyone of these possibilities may be true. You believe concretely that one is true, without any scientific backing. My argument that God may exist in heaven was restating my previous argument that he may exist outside of the physical world. This was just an example of where he would be if he were outside of the physical world. However, I can't be sure as to where, or what type of God there is, or if there even is one. I never stated that God created everything. It can be assumed for the sake of this debate that he created the universe as we know it, just the earth or nothing at all, and just exists in the universe somewhere. As an agnostic I do not know what to believe as I've repeatedly stated (sorry for repetition). I also don't necessarily believe in a god at all. However I don't make definitive statements about the existence of a god because no evidence exists against this belief. My opponent challenged an agnostic to this debate, but claims that God cannot exist outside of existence. As I've stated many time before, agnostics don't believe in the either. We don't know what to believe until scientific fact tells us otherwise. Therefore in this debate alone, my opponents arguments are not valid because they do not reflect the beliefs of the people he challenged to this debate. I'm sure he will do excellent in a debate against a Christian, however, I do not agree with his arguments against an agnostic. I do understand where he is coming from, as I have presented a few potential locations where god may exist, and some potential types of gods. However, these are simply possibilities, and do not reflect mine nor any agnostics views. This is why my opponents arguments are not valid against agnosticism. In conclusion, my opponent is very well read, and served to be an excellent adversary. Had I been religious he would have beat me big time. However, this being said, the whole topic of the debate shouldn't have been about agnosticism but rather Christianity or another religious teaching's view on a specific god. While debating an agnostic, he repeatedly strayed away from the beliefs or lack thereof, of agnostics, and tried to focus on the beliefs of the majority of religious people. As I've said before, just because it is a majority belief that a god is supernatural within his definition, doesn't fall into a debate with an agnostic who doesn't have an unconditional belief of any type of god in any setting. This is why I believe that my opponent lost the debate, simply because he focused on the beliefs of people he wasn't debating. Claiming that NO god exists in any setting is impossible to agree with because it alone eliminates unlimited possibilities without any scientific backing. It was a pleasure debating you, and good luck to you and your opponent in the comments ;)