God loves us

Thanks to Pro for starting this debate.=Framework= As expected, the burden of proof lies solely with Pro as he is affirming a positive statement, "God loves us." There are several important things he must do in order to meet this burden. First, he must establish that "God" actually exists, for if God does not exist, the resolution where "God" is committing an action is impossible. Second, he must prove not only that a god exists, but because he has capitalized the "G," which god he is talking about and prove that this god exists, and every other religion must be wrong. Third, he must be able to prove that God loves "us." If he is unable to prove any or all of these claims, you vote Con. I believe we can safely make the assumption that he is referring to the Christian, Tri-Omni God, so I'm going to base my constructives around that. This means that, if I manage to disprove any of the traits this God has -- omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience -- then he does not logically follow and thus, for our purposes, does not exist. Note that this is far beyond my burden in this debate. =Rebuttals= Pro doesn't utilize much space in his opening arguments, so I'm going to rebut his case and then move into my own constructives. Pro states, "If GOD didn't love us then GOD wouldn't have given us a chance to go to heaven or he wouldn't have made us unique and special." There are several demonstrable problems with this statement that allow us to discard it immediately. First, it is a begging-the-question fallacy, otherwise known as circular reasoning: "You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise. This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given" [1]. Of course, the argument presupposes not only God's existence, but that he "gives us a chance to go to heaven." For this to be true, heaven must exist, but Pro provides us not evidence for this, or even clarification as to which heaven he is referring to. Second, he claims that God made us "unique and special." However, he provides no evidence for the claim at all. "Unique" means "having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable" [2]. For this to be true, we would all have to be one-of-a-kind, though Pro not only fails to prove this, but fails to account for how this leads us to the conclusion that God must exist. "Special" means "distinguished by some unusual quality; especially : being in some way superior" [3]. The problem with this is that it entices us to ask, "superior relative to what?" or "unusual or distinguished relative to what?" Pro fails to give us answers, or to demonstrate how this leads us to God. Even if he proved uniqueness or specialness objectively, to assert that either of these lead us to the conclusion that God must exist would be a non-sequitur fallacy: "Non Sequitur...in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion" [4].=Constructives=I. No Evidence for GodThe person affirming the existence of God always has the burden of proof, but this burden is impossible; no such evidence for God exists or has existed because the queston of god, and by that I mean any god, has no truth value. This is an impossible burden for Pro to fulfill.II. Which God?There are about 4,200 religions in the world [5]. Pro has capitalized "God," meaning that he referring to one specfic God, and therefore he must be able to show us why his God is more plausible than any other God. Why isn't the correct God, for instance, the flying spaghetti monster? There is as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster as there is for the Christian God. III. "God" Implies a Personal God, which means the Riddle of Epicurus is ApplicablePro has chosen not to argue for an impersonal, deistic god, but rather a personal God who intervenes and actively watches over our lives. Therefore, he must be capable of defending against the Riddle of Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" [6]For simplicity, this argument can be syllogized as follows: P1) If God is omnibenevolent, he has a desire to put an end to ruthless, unwarranted suffering.P2) If God is omnipotent, he is able to put an end to ruthless, unwarranted suffering.P3) Ruthless, unwarranted suffering exists.C1) Therefore, God is not omnipotent and omnibenevolent. P1 is true per the definition of omnibenevolence. P2 is true per the definition of omnipotenceP3 is prima facie true, and Pro would have no reason refuting this as, if he is arguing for the Christian God, he affirms the existence of suffering through the depiction of Jesus' death. C1 follows from P1, P2, and P3. IV. The Existence of EvilI'm going to begin by rendering Christian doctrine and bringing us toward its logical conclusion, proving why it is logically impossible.P1) God created the universeP2) The universe contains evilC1) God created evllP1 would be true by the definition of God my opponent is defending. P2 is prima-facie true. C1 follows from P1 and P2But God is omnibenevolent, so he shouldn't be able to create evil, meaning that the mere existence of evil invalidates his existence.V. Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence are mutually exclusiveThis contention follows from Contention 4. P1) If God is omnipotent, he can create evil. P2) If God is omnibenevolent, he cannot create evil because he is all-good.C1) God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. P1 is true by the definition of omnipotenceP2 is true by the definition of omnibenevolence C1 follows from P1 and P2 VI. Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusiveP1) If God is omnipotent, he is capable of having free will. P2) If God is omniscient, he can predict his actions with 100% accuracy and therefore does not have free wil.C1) Therefore, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.P1 is true by the definition of omnipotenceP2 is true by the definition of omniscience, whereby God has perfect knowledge of the past, present and future. C1 follows from P1 and P2 VII. The Omnipotence ParadoxThis argument is simple: can God create a rock that is so heavy that even he can't lift it? If the answer is yes, he is not omnipotent because he wasn't able to lift the rock. If the answer is no, then he still isn't omnipotent because there was something he couldn't do. Therefore, omnipotence isn't possible.=Conclusion=I have refuted all of Pro's contentions and provided seven constructive arguments that take me well beyond my burden in this debate, logically disproving God. With that, I await Pro's reply. Citations [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic) [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://americanvision.org...;