The Christian God can not be proven

"Con is using sematics by assuming I mean to portray that I can not prove the Christian God exists. Pro is confusing the resolution. The Christian God can not be proven. "Pro claims that I am confusing the resolution. However, I think it should be clear that the only one delving into confusion here is Pro. Yes, the resoluon is The Christian God cannot be proven. In order for Pro to demonstrate this resolution, Pro must show that The Christian God does not exist. Why? Because the resolution assumes it. As I have shown, The Christian God as defined by The Bible clearly has the power to prove himself if he exists. Thus, if God exists, he can prove himself (meaning God's existence can indeed be proven; negating the resolution). Since the only way for the resolution not to be affirmed is for Pro to prove God does not exist, and this has not been accomplished, it is clear Pro has failed in his task. "I have no way of proving the God of Christianity and believe nobody does"Even if no human can prove God can exist, this does not mean that God's existence cannot be proven. God can prove himself! "Con took the debate so he must show that the Christian God can be proven. .. ."False. This is the switching the burden of proof logical fallacy. My only burden is to undermine the resolution, or my opponent's arguments in favor of the resolution. My opponent is asking me to prove the resolution false, when Pro never mentioned that burden of proof was shared in his opening statement. Therefore, I urge a conduct vote against Pro for this. "I have met my burden of proof and maintain that I can not prove the Christian God. .. "The above actually means Pro has not met his burden of proof (not vice versa). Pro has to prove that the Christian God does not exist to win this debate. This is because he has the burden of proof to demonstrate the resolution, and the resolution rests upon the unjustified assumption that the Christian God does not exist. If the Christian God exists then the resolution is false by necessity because omnipotence necessarily entails that God can prove himself, and can be proven. Thus, Pro had to show that the Christian God did not exist to win this debate. It seems as if he missed the mark. "I will now take this a step further and proclaim that nobody has proof for the Christian God, that why they call belief in God, faith. If we had proof that of the Christian God we wouldn't need to have faith that he exists we would know for certain, but nobody has that much proof for the Christian God, otherwise we would not have sincere atheists who demand proof but after scrutiny they do not consider it enough to say without any doubt that the Christian God has been proven and make it a shut case. .. .. ." I am completely convinced after reading this, that Pro is just completely ignoring my argument. It is rather frustrating. Even if no person on Earth can prove God exists, it would not follow from that that the Christian God cannot be proven. God could prove himself, thus the Christian God can be proven if he exists. It actually follows necessarily from omnipotence. The great thing is, I do not have to prove God exists to negate the resolution because the burden of proof is not on me. Pro must prove God does not exist to affirm the resolution, because the burden of proof is on him. The rest of Pro's case is just more of the same drivel. Conclusion Pro has the burden of proof to show that the Christian God cannot be proven. This resolution rests on the non-existence of the Christian God (if the Christian God exists it would follow necessarily that he could prove himself due to omnipotence, and thus the Christian God could be proven). Pro did not show that God does not exist. Therefore, the burden of proof has not been met.