Greetings! Welcome to another exciting debate. As always thank you to my opponent for the challenge. I fear there has been a misunderstanding in the pro con relationship. I accepted this debate because I believed I would be arguing for the existence of God, in opposition to the resolution, not the other way around.
However, in order to give my opponent a good debate, I will play Dawkins advocate and give my best shot at being an atheist. Please do not refer to me as dust and ashes in this debate, but rather, my atheist alter ego, gene and mutation.
Now on to my argument.
As the great Carl Sagan once said, the universe is all there is, was, and ever will be. Surely this is a basic fact of science. As a species, our knowledge base operates on the engine of science. On the engine of experimentation, and observable results. We know what we know by observing the universe around us. All of the phenomenon and processes around us all eventually come down to matter acting on matter.
1. Everything in the known universe has been observed to come down to particles or energy
The fact is, we have never observed or tested anything that superseded nature. We just haven't.
2. Since this is the case, if we posit a God who is immaterial, what we are positing is someone who does not fit into our model of existence, which is based on scientific realities. In other words, immaterial realities do not exist.
I hope my opponent will consider these basic scientific facts...in my next round I will reply to my opponent arguments regarding shapes and math.
Thank you all!
(Dear God please forgive me of these blasphemies)