God Does Exist, ( Christian God )

Thanks for the debate Pro. When demonstrating something to be true, the person making the positive assertion has the burden of proof. "God does exist" is inherently a positive assertion and therefore, for the resolution alone, Pro has the burden of proof. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... As Con, I make no assertion that god does not exist, rather I argue that the burden of proof for god has not been met; I am reasonable in rejecting the resolution. Of course, both sides need to provide evidence, especially for any positive assertions made aside from the resolution. Refutes, retorts, and rebuttals all still have an obligation to meet their "sub-resolution" burden of proof for both Pro and Con. I am taking a risk by taking a debate without definitions of god that has Con going first, but here's my guess at how this might go. I reject the claim that the Christian concept of God exists on the grounds that no god has been demonstrated logically, physically, or contingent on physical reality; the burden of proof has not yet been met for god. 1. Logically, first cause arguments for god are infinite regress fallacies, and arguments from design employ an argument from analogy fallacy whereby the analogy of a designed object's similarity to the universe lacks relevance and a variety of examples. https://en.wikipedia.org... -The Kalam cosmological argument in particular is an infinite regress fallacy hidden by a simple infinitive verb phrase (begin to exist), which then requires a non sequitur to retrofit whatever version of god. -Arguments from design ignore the fact that we only have one universe, so any analogy to something complex, like a watch, has other examples to demonstrate its design by a human/intelligence. We only have one example of a universe so the "many examples of a designed product" analogy isn't valid. 2. Physically, the Christian concept of god isn't physical, and is most likely agreed by Pro to not be detectable...however, if I have misrepresented Pro's stance, please let me know. In which case, if god is physical, what are the properties/mechanisms of god that allow him to avoid detection? 3. Contingently on physical reality, the explanation of god would require something physical for god to be contingent on. If this is the case, that god is contingent on physical reality, then Con must explain HOW. Any idea, true or untrue, is contingent on the physical brain. Whether or not the idea is true is determined by attempting to match the content of the idea with reality. If the attempt is unsuccessful, and the idea is untrue, then the neurons and brain that the idea is contingent on still exist. The idea is still however, untrue. Ideas are contingent on physical reality; god has not been demonstrated to be as such. So, that's my best shot at predicting how this debate might go. To sum up for Pro: 1. Do you agree, for the resolution alone, that Pro has the burden of proof? 2. Can you demonstrate god logically without fallacious arguments? 3. If god is physical, what are the properties/mechanisms that allow him to avoid detection? 4. If god is contingent on physical reality, then HOW? I continue to reject the resolution, god does exist, because the burden of proof for god has not been met logically, physically, or contingent on physical reality.