God exists.

/Since my opponent has made no contestation to my proposed definition of supernatural, then it must follow that he agrees God must not be visible and observable.I objected to this when I gave my argument from divine hiddenness. I do not think that the standard definition of a monotheistic God is compatible with His failure to reveal Himself to all people. /Following that line of thought, then it is clear that this debate does not demand production of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to God's existence (else God can't be a supernatural being) but rather MANIFESTATIONS of God as a conception fitting the proposed attributes.I never once said that God's revelation had to be physical. God could give us an internal awareness that He exists. Doing so would not violate free will. /4. The actuality that Santa Claus exists to his follower is certain. Since all supernatural beings must remain beyond visible observable universe, it is rather silly to demand "physical" trail of these beings. Rather then physical actuality, both Santa Claus and God are very real within the conceptual actuality of their respective proponents.This may be so, but it doesn't go one way or another to proving Santa Claus' or God's existence. Without some type of evidence, it is irrational to believe it, regardless of whether or not it actually exists. /For as long as these three criteria are satisfied, God's existence requires no evil-slaying or love-seeking evidence put forth by my opponent.My response is the same as above. This may be so, but it doesn't go one way or another to proving God's existence. Without some type of evidence, it is irrational to believe it, regardless of whether or not it actually exists. Now for a couple more arguments against God's existence. There are hundreds of different religions each with a different conception of God. The odds of choosing the correct religion are very, very low. There are 22 major religions and 12 minor ones. There are over 38,000 Christian denominations. Also, hundreds of ancient religions existed in the past and are no longer practiced. Who's to say those religions aren't correct? Although this argument does not negate God's existence, it does show that God is inconsistent in His revelation, which I've already shown is incompatible with His nature. Religion is dependent upon one's birthplace. If you are in India, you will most likely be Hindu, in the Middle East a Muslim, in the United States a Christian. There's no religion that's universally widespread. In Africa and South America, most people still hold to tribal religions and (assuming those religions are wrong) will almost certainly never gain knowledge of the correct religion. There's no reason why God couldn't have started a religion as soon as the first humans were put on the earth. Instead the first religion, whatever it was, has died out and now we have all new religions. In 10,000 years, we will almost certainly have all new religions and on and on until the end of human existence. My point is that if God existed he could have revealed Himself to us from the start and guided the religion throughout all of human history. If a religion in the past is true, then all of us today are unsaved according to it's doctrines. If a religion in the present is true, then all of the people in the past are unsaved and all people in the future will likely be unsaved. If a future religion is true, then all of us living today and in the past have no chance of redemption. In short, it's all just a big dice roll. Pick your religion and there will be a substantial amount of people who don't believe it. The popularity of a particular religion has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. If Christianity is true, then 70% of the people in the world today are unsaved and going to hell. If Islam is true, 80% of the population is unsaved. It is impossible to prove a negative. God, due to His apparently unrevelatory nature, is a claim based on no evidence. There are arguments for His existence, but no actual proof. In short, your entire argument in this debate has been showing me that just because my arguments have not been satisfied, it does not necessarily negate God's existence. I agree with you (as long as we're not talking about the Christian God or any other God that follows my definition). But you haven't been able to show me any definitive proof that God necessarily exists. For this last round, I would like to see you attempt to do that. In closing, I must admit that you were better than I expected. I still disagree with you on a lot of issues, but this has been a very good debate and it would be an honor to debate you in the future.