because anti-matter and matter cancel eachother out, making **nothing**

by your logic

so go the other way

So they evolved from nothing?

So they made themselves?

*Nothing formed anti-matter and matter.*

Can you prove this statement?

._.

its a theory right now

however

so you admit you can't prove it

theories are more reliable than assumptions

LOL

is your theory not more than an assumption?

afaik you haven't provided any proof yet

neither have you

Our argument comes from refuting you LOL

because im not the one making baseless statements my good lad

thats not proof

You made the original claim.

You provide evidence,

we refute it.

Have you ever heard of the burden of proof?

Quite an important part of a debate.

"this theory is wrong. there for GOD"

*Nothing formed anti-matter and matter.*

This is your original statement. Can you back up your own statement?

"I don't like God, therefore this theory must do"

no more like "theories are more reliable than assumptions"

is your theory any more than an assumption?

you've yet to provide proof to make it more than an assumption

calling it a theory doesn't make it *not* an assumption

and youre claims are more rational?

good, now that we've established your theory is no more than an assumption

my claims are based on something actually observed

Can you provide those observations?

anti-matter and matter come to cancel each other out

Our claims are actually refutes of your statement. You are ament to provide proof, not us. We are giving an alternative to a claim. Burden of Proof dictates that you give us evidence of your claims, and then we refute them, then we can make a counter claim, and you can refute us.

"anti-matter cancels matter out, therefore god doesn't exist"

You're not making any sense.

oh my god

youre making more assumptions than me

Atleast you admit you're making assumptions.