god does not exist

con keeps calling me con ignore that i a pr0 Con(((. I'd respond, as many debates go here that perhaps such wrongdoings were a necessary evil that actually give rise to some good that we as humans cannot know. A rectification of evil through a divine logic rather than a human one. )))) Con fails to understand that good is good regardless of who its applied to. Evil does not have to be commited for good to arise. If i were to go help an elderly woman shovel her drive way for no reward where is the evil committed before hand to make me do the deed? There is no evil committed i simply helped because i could. Evil is not a cause for someone being good. Con is also using a trick which i postend not to in the rules. he is using my text but taking it out of context to suit his own needs. CON (((((((((Finally, pro remarks: " Can you provide definate evidence to say this man doesnt exist? the answer of course is no as there is no way to determine if he is real or not." And, just like that, con throws away his position by conceding to the impossibility of disproving the existence of some purported entity. As con was to establish, irrefutably, that god does not exist, so he admits that it cannot be done. I need no longer to win this readerships confidence as I should have already won it with this concession. Thank you.)))) It would seem con agrees with my statement that it is impossible to disprove the existance of of an imaginary being and as such claims he should win which means in turn he believes god is indeed imaginary so he cannot be disporved. However if we know somthing is imaginary it also means they do not exist. so by con admitting that he cannot be disproved he is admitting he is imaginary and therefore should lose this debate. The above text was to describe an IMAGINARY man. You cannot provide definate evidence to say he exists. However you can still provide logic to suggest that he doesnt exist. For example i said he was a man and was 932 billion years old but the earth is only 4.5 billion years old. But again that is not definate evidence as i never said he lived on earth for his whole life. ((((((con "One cannot throw away logic in an attempt to describe somthing as without logic one can never arrive at a truth." Yes and I'd agree with pro . The problem is con is the one who's decided to dispense with logic. Tell me how the notion of something more powerful than the most powerful thing isn't as logically invalid as the notion of a square circle? Their both nonsense. Sure if we're calling god an illogical entity it shouldn't be a problem but then what does truth and falsity even mean in that framework. If I can square a circle and make an entity greater than god than why all the fuss about making something false, true and something true, false? It just means that nothing can really be said about god whatsoever. ))))))))) This was an attempt to describe omnipotent by the definition in which an omnipotent being is capable of doing anything even the logically absurd. that being said it is only illogical to surpass infinite but if an omnpotent being can do the logically absurd then he can indeed make something stornger than himself making him not truly omnipotent as there is a level higher than god.