what is the most powerful debate to prove that god does not exsist?

I'd like to add that whether God exists or not is largely inconsequential. People of faith aren't likely to be swayed by scientific proofs, rhetoric, or discourse, nor are atheists likely to be converted.

And there are plenty of scientists who have faith, and those who are faithless who believe in the supernatural.

I think a more pertinent question is whether ancient books should be taken at face value, and believed to be literal rather than metaphorical truth. Do people truly believe the earth was created first, and then everything else came into being? Is the world only six thousand years old?

Or, instead, are works of faith important as parables, to examine our place in a chaotic and confusing world, teaching lessons as to how we can be better neighbors and citizens by showing both the best and worst of humanity?

As I understand it, the Catholic Church doesn't discount the Big Bang theory, and accepts evolution as an instrument of God.

The question of God's existence isn't nearly as important as to how we use it to guide our behavior.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and popular culture. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and the theory of value (since some definitions of God include "perfection").
The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence. Atheists view arguments for the existence of God as insufficient, mistaken or outweighed by arguments against it, whereas some religions, such as Jainism, reject the possibility of a creator deity. Philosophers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include Friedrich Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell.

history , a monotheistic patriachal religion ,(one god and its a bloke ) is pre dated by pantheistic , matriachal , and patriachal religions
prior to that shamanism and ancestor worship
spirituality certainly exists humans have been having rituals of esoteric practice for most of its history ,
on the ranking of time however god barely scrapes into 4th place and my great great great great great great great great granny Boudicca could easily kick his arse

I do not really know how to prove this exactly, but I believe in God ...
I also feel that this could be more related to our beliefs ... Many things are still not believed by many people and they say they are like fiction ... so I feel this discussion can be fruitless And remain unfinished ...
As if many do not believe in souls, jinn, etc

God exists because I've seen her, doing her make up, and she was fascinating !

https://i.imgur.com/rajUxn7.mp4

i doubted god's exsitence too , but one day Liverpool gave Robbie Fowler his debut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9BP0PjKHgk

Idk what that even means 🤣🤣🤣

Life cannot continue by chance. Of course, there must be a power above nature.
But I think it would be pointless to discuss this with an atheist. In the end, whatever I say, they will find a way again and say "No".

@chummer "I'd like to add that whether God exists or not is largely inconsequential. People of faith aren't likely to be swayed by scientific proofs, rhetoric, or discourse, nor are atheists likely to be converted."

And yet people change their religions all the time. Just because people are steadfast in belief doesn't mean they can't break.
It's hard, but people who try to be intellectually honest do break and change their views. It isn't impossible. I know I've disobeyed conventions to follow what I believe to be correct, not just because it is socially acceptable.

"Or, instead, are works of faith important as parables, to examine our place in a chaotic and confusing world, teaching lessons as to how we can be better neighbors and citizens by showing both the best and worst of humanity?

As I understand it, the Catholic Church doesn't discount the Big Bang theory and accepts evolution as an instrument of God.

The question of God's existence isn't nearly as important as to how we use it to guide our behavior."

This is gnosticizing the religion. How, exactly, if a religion is built upon lies, does it help to spread it to humanity? People can be taught good values in other ways, like famillies, and not only is it not necessary for them to be shown such a religion, it only harms them because it denies them what we know to be true.