It is not illogical to suppose the Non existence of a known god

To begin my rebuttal, I would like to immediately point out the fact that my opponent has completely ignored my argument.I find it interesting how my opponent began his argument by addressing what someone said in the comments instead of addressing my argument. Furthermore, my opponent's argument does not relate at all to the argument I put forth in Round 1. I conclude that my argument stands: it is illogical to suppose the non-existence of a god that has been proven to be. My opponent has provided no evidence to the contrary, and I do not see how he possibly can. Unless he can show why this is not the case, he has lost.I would first point out that my opponent has used a different definition of "known" than the one that is specified for this debate. Known, in the context of this debate, can be taken to mean "proved and publicly acknowledged to be." This has already been established. I would point out to my opponent that this debate is not on the topic of the existence of a god or gods. Furthermore, it is not related to whether or not a specific god exists. The debate topic is whether or not it is logical to suppose the non-existence of a hypothetical known god. As I have already pointed out, if the god in question is already known to be/exist, then of course, based on the established definition of logical, it is illogical to suppose the non-existence of this god.My opponent said the following: "It is Not[sic] illogical to suppose the non existance[sic] of a known god, who is only known because of ancient barbaric, sexist, homophobic, slave supporting, and who to kill and why writings that have some "inspirational gospels" sprinkled in later."This is of course true. However, as I just pointed out, this is not the god we are discussing in this debate, and this is not the definition of known we are using in the debate either. If my opponent wanted to discuss this topic instead (whether or not it is logical to suppose the existence of the Christian God, who from my opponent's later writings I take it he is referring to), he should have made it very clear in his opening statement. As he provided no elaboration or definitions, I established the meaning of key terms in my Round 1 statement. Even though it is irrelevant, my opponent has said nothing about my definitions. I assume this means that he finds them satisfactory. If this is the case, then I wonder why he has argued the way he has thus far. Maybe I should not assume he deemed my statement worthy of careful reading, or even of reading at all.As interesting and occasionally clever or incoherent the rest of my opponent's opening argument is, it is a complete tangent. He seems to be more interested in preaching on completely unrelated topics than on focusing on our debate. He said, "However in 2013, the most divisive and despicable fairy tale ever, the holy binky, is the sengle[sic] most disgusting invention in the history of mankind." He also stated the following: "Another reason that it is not illogical to suppose the non existance[sic] of a known god, the sheer number of choices thruought[sic] time and the absoluteley[sic] incredible amount of obvious plagerism[sic] from older writings."He said, "Seperate[sic] and then annihilate. Once we seperate[sic] religion from government, and they are no longer in bed together, religion will begin a rapid decline into mediocrity onto its way to absurdity, its rightoeous[sic] place :)"He said this: "There is no gray area here, the genesis creation is bogus, cumulative evolution by natural selection is moon landing true. Only the nut jobs think we never landed on the moon."He said that "Any personal god known to man has a perpensity[sic] to be extremely concerned with human sexuality, and practicing some level of misogyny in their writings."He even said this: "Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to Not[sic] question the origins of life, and suppose the non existance[sic] of leprechauns and gods with the same emphasis."I cannot see how any of these statements relate at all to the topic at hand. The last quote, though I'm not quite sure what it means, seems to be an argument against his position (saying that it is intellectually dishonest to suppose the non-existence of gods). However, this is not a debate on intellectual honesty. This is not a debate on whether religion is despicable, nor is it a debate on evolution. It is not a debate on the validity of Christianity. It is not a debate about design. It is not even a debate about whether or not "The poison of religious dogma is worse when ignorance is present."According to my opponent, "The atrocious nature of that filthy book absolutely screams at the intellect to stay away!"Okay... Still, I fail to see how the Bible and his hatred of it are relevant. That would most likely be because these things aren't relevant.In conclusion, he says "Dont[sic] listen to a single human being, and apply equal amounts of skepticism to both science and religion. While doing your objective research, apply this equal sketicism[sic] and inquisitive nature, and you will clearly see that it is Not[sic] illogical to suppose the non existance[sic] of a known god :)" I'm not sure what was meant by this piece of advice. It was unclear if he was asking the audience to vote with this in mind. I will not venture to say that my opponent is attempting to direct the audience away from both the topic and the actual arguments given in this debate, but it does seem this way. In conclusion, based on the definitions laid out for this debate, it is illogical to suppose the non-existence of a known god (one that has been proven to exist). I'm certainly not saying that a god has been proven to exist. That is irrelevant to this debate. I would ask my opponent to stay on topic this round.Thank you