You are invited to attempt to prove the existence of your god

I commend the Pro for acknowledging from the beginning that the existence of a god can neither be absolutely proved or disproved. In response to this statement however, I take the stance that there are an overwhelming amount of sound rebuttals which can be offered up in the face of god claims and in the face of the subjective evidence offered as proof for these claims by many theists. I would like to begin by asking my opponent to firstly define what they mean by 'God' and, given that Pro believes a God exists, to then define what they hold the idea of 'exists' to mean in context of this belief. My opponent has stated that a scientific theory is not fact unless the demonstrable components of this theory have been witnessed. I do not wish to delve too deeply into the questionable use of the term 'theory' (the term is sometimes used too liberally, from a scientific perspective, as is the case with the likes of the big bang concept) but I will point out that my opponents understanding of the term 'theory' is misguided. The Pro's ultimate point here is that a theory is not fact and while the big bang theory is the most current widely accepted idea for explaining the origins of the universe, the theory of evolution is held to be complete fact. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I state this fact merely to illustrate that although no person was there to witness the beginning of evolution, it does not make the theory any less credible. Therefore, it is entirely logical and reasonable to say that something can be held to be factual, in this context, even with a lack of witnesses for the initial event. All that is necessary to achieve this is evidence. On the point of evidence, although I admire my opponent for admitting that the existence of a cosmic creator cannot be proved definitely, I wish to point out that not one single piece of tangible, non-subjective evidence has been provided in support of a god claim. I am happy to delve into scriptural debate should the situation call for it. For now I will continue on course and refrain from referencing scripture at this point. I would however like to know what purpose the Pro feels religion serves. My opponent has stated their believe in a god and that this god created the universe. I would invite Pro to define what they mean by 'universe' as this is prudent in such a debate. I would also seek a definition for 'spiritual beings' and an explanation for the statement "we are spiritual beings rather than material beings". I feel it acceptable to assume, given my opponents statement, that they believe in an afterlife - this should also be a reasonable assumption given their theistic beliefs. I would therefore like to know if my opponent holds their belief in an afterlife to be a supporting factor for the existence of their god. If so, an explanation for this would be appreciated and, once again given the nature of this debate, I would request that tangible evidence be provided to support the idea of there being an afterlife. My opponent has made an interesting point - "[. .. ] just because something is in your mind does not make it false". I can only surmise that this held view will be used to justify the believe in a deity despite the complete lack of tangible evidence to prove its existence. I would welcome the expansion of this point and will therefore only add, as a means of provoking thought, that "your truth" does not make the belief any more factual. In order for something to be real, it must be measurable. Completely disproving god is impossible but this does not create a fifty-fifty situation - evidence, reasoning and the application of logic all lead to the existence of an all-powerful creator being very improbable indeed. I welcome my opponents rebuttal and look forward to reading the additional points Pro has to offer.