I claim there is no God

To recap CON presents his position that "There is no God." He states "I want a real debate, with FACTS, otherwise it's a waste of time." I gave the outline of my argument that there is compelling evidence for the existence of God I gave legal / historical evidence for the existence of God. I gave scientific evidence about the complexity of creation that points to an intelligent designer. I assert that it takes more blind faith to believe that these things happened by chance than to believe in God. I gave eye witness testimony of people familiar with God I did not cite philosophical arguments for the existence of God as CON showed disdain for philosophy and logic when he says "Philosophy is just that; philosophy...not evidence. Interesting thoughts, but nothing else. "Deep consideration"...still isn't evidence." My biggest difficulty in presenting a theistic position was choosing from the vast amount of evidence for the existence of God within the limits of the debate format. My biggest difficulty in the debate was the way CON refused to debate. He states "My reasons for refuting any claims for a God is the lack of evidence." He then ignores the evidence presented or claims that no one piece of evidence proves the existence of God. He missed many points in the debate including, that the sheer volume of evidence points to the existence of God. I do not have any round 3 arguments for response since CON forfeited round 3 and said "I forfeit this debate and my membership to DDO forever." I would have liked CON to answer some questions in more depth. What was the point of including a "debunking" Pascal"s Wager in a debate about the existence of God. It was not a point I brought up, and it does not directly pertain to this debate. Your comments on free will and God"s foreknowledge were similarly unrelated, and show a lack of understanding with the literature on both those topics. CON writes off the Bible as a source for eye witness reports even though it is the best documented evidence for anything in it"s time period by every standard of history and ancient document reliability / accuracy. Since the Bible dos not concern itself with proving the existence of God it was not needed for my part in the debate, but I would like to know what ancient documents CON is willing to accept as eye witness reports. "Can the authors of the Bible be verified? Can what is said in the Bible be proved to be true? Can the translation of the Bible be proved to be accurate? Which version of the Bible is most accurate and why? If there are other documents outside the Bible that can be verified, I'd be interested in them." CON states his interest in documents that can be verified, but does not seem to understand the concepts of document reliability or of eye witness testimony or of the judicial standards of evidence. At the end of the debate I am left with only one conclusion. CON is very religious His god is Science. He believe that "Science has proven there is no need for god" He is not willing to look at any evidence contrary to his FAITH in Science. CON gives the core of his Belief when he says "Even if a God existed, he would be a useless God, since he wouldn't be needed to 'create' anything." CON dismisses eye witness testimony with the statement "Eyewitness testimony is not very reliable" This is the best he can do to refute Legal / Historical evidence? I hope those reading the debate give thought to the issues. I hope you can see that this debate has a clear winner. PRO Thanks for taking the time to read this debate.