This House Believes that Hell exists

Let's have a good time, shall we? Now, before we move on, let us be clear of who the Burden of Proof is on. The people who claim that Hell exists are usually religious folks who claim that if a person does not follow the rules of their religion, they will go to hell. The idea of Hell, originally, was from religious people, as demonstrated by the definition which I gave to you on Hell and therefore, the Burden of Proof is upon you to answer all of my arguments with clear evidence so that I, as well as the people who are reading this debate, can scrutinize the evidence to check if it is Credible, Consistent and Corroborative. Let's get started, shall we? My first and main substantive for this debate would be entitled Evidence. Currently, there has been no evidence whatsoever for the existence of hell. Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. There has been no such evidence whatsoever which can indicate that the belief in a Hell is true or valid. If there is some evidence on your part, please state it here with links to different websites so that I can easily cross-check the information and scrutinize the evidence. Some forms of 'evidence' can be made up, you know. Now, the normal response to this would be that the Bible is evidence that Hell is real. Well, the validity of the Bible is questionable in itself, since there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that anything in the Bible is of any historical value. If there is any evidence to prove that the events in the Bible are true, please indicate them here, again with links so that I can cross-check the evidence and information and scrutinize it. Any sort of argument, whether philosophical or scientific, has to have evidence backing it up in order to be sure of it's truth or validity. The evidence must also be good and not contradict any scientific laws unless it clearly sets out to disprove the scientific laws while replacing them with even better explanations for different phenomenon. I do not really think that there is any form of evidence which can do that, because scientific laws are being tested every single day in laboratories and have not been broken even a single time. Please provide the evidence in earnest, thank you. My second substantive will be entitled Physical Implications. Whether Hell is a place of torture or a place of love and kindness is completely irrelevant. That's a debate for another day. Ignoring all Multiple-Universe theories because of over-complications, the Universe is Nature itself and since Nature encompasses everything which existed, exists and will ever exist, Hell must also be a part of Nature and therefore, the Universe. The argument can be simplified like this: P1: The Universe encompasses everything that existed, exists and will ever exist. P2: Hell exists C: Hell is within the Universe and a part of it. However, as funny as it may sound, Scientists have been unsuccessful in detecting any sort of physical place which has lakes of eternal fires or anything of that sort. You might say that the place might be invisible to us. However, even if a certain place is invisible and unseen, as a part of the Universe, it must have some sort of effect on the Universe, just like the explosion of a star has some sort of effect on the Universe, such as releasing different materials out into the Universe. So far, we have not been able to see any of these effects on the Universe. We know this because we have traced all of the known phenomenon back to stars and galaxy. If we see two objects orbiting 'something' and suddenly disappearing, we attribute that to a black hole, because it is the only explanation which is scientifically accurate and has theoretical formulas and equations to back it up. We've traced back supernovas to exploding stars as well as black holes to stars which collapse upon their own gravitational field. Again, this is related to my first substantive, Evidence, but it is apart from it, in some sense, as it starts to delve into the implications an existing Hell would have on the Universe and how, if Hell does exist within the Universe, it does not have any effect whatsoever on the Universe as far as our highly advanced instruments of measurement can tell us. For my third and last argument, it is entitled Eyewitnesses, simply because there have not been eyewitnesses. I don't mean to make the fallacy of 'just because you can't see your brain does not mean it does not exist'. I don't mean that when I make that statement. I'm talking about the accuracy with which we describe a place which we have not really seen. It really is hard to describe what you have not seen, felt, experienced and even come into contact with. It is hard for physicists to describe the Universe because the only thing which we can rely upon are our telescopes and our satellites orbiting the Earth. Moreover, Light takes a particularly long amount of time to come from a distant star all the way to us. Therefore, we are only seeing the place as it was many, many years ago. We do not know the exact condition of the place as it is currently. So, how does one describe a place which they have not seen, felt, experienced or come into contact with? How does one simply believe in a book written by another human being who, himself, did not come into any form of contact with hell? How can someone describe Hell on the basis that it is a place for torture only because a holy book tells you that it is? The typical answer to this would be to say that 'we must have faith. '. Faith is, in this debate, defined as the strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. It is philosophically and scientifically incorrect to just put your faith in something, especially when it has no evidence go it whatsoever. We, as human beings, have to look for the evidence for any claim which is made. If the person who made the claim does not provide any evidence for his/her claims, that claim can be dismissed as quickly as it had been made. I shall wait for your reply and I shall answer all of your substantives in Round 3. Please refrain from rebutting my arguments just yet and try to just stating your arguments as clearly as you possibly can so that I can give rebuttals towards them and you can give your rebuttals towards my arguments. Please try to type out each point under one paragraph so I can easily answer to each of your points, just as I have for your sake. Thank you very much and have a good day :) Sources: 1. . https://www.google.com.sg... 2. . https://www.google.com.sg...