God's Existence

Thank you for joining me again. I was hoping we could continue.Because you used your first argument as a way of trying to make a fool of me, I deducted to use my first rebuttal as a way to make a fool of you. It is my full intentions to keep this debate light hearted. I apologize you had to experience such a rash rebuttal, I wanted you to observe the "vehemence" you tried to imply. I should start by mentioning that Jehovah's Witness and The Church of the Latter Day Saints do not consider themselves Christians; they consider themselves as they are. "1Chris·tiannoun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-1a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ [3]"Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the teachings of Charles Taze Russell, while Mormons believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith. The teachings of those two cults both contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ and therefore, demonstrate that they profess belief in Charles Russell and Joseph Smith as opposed to Jesus Christ. Humanistic teachings is that man is his own god, therefore, humanists do believe in a god. Hindu belief teaches the belief in a god known as the unknown god in conjunction with others. Other religions do believe in "Capital G" god, such as Agnostics and other deists. Next I will allow for my say in your attempt at a dismantle:1. Yes it can. A majority of the Bible is metaphoric. As a matter of fact, that verse is in part metaphoric, I will explain later.2. It is possible in the study of human genetics that mutations can occur within an inbred society. Many Evolutionists believe this. 3. I will: When we are made in God's image, we are made with an eternal spirit.I should Vitilgo is a very important disease in the field of genetics. Because you have used it, I assume you are familiar with it and its effect on chromosome duplications. This supports my theory of mutational inbred reproduction.And on a final note of your "image" argument. We are created with an eternal soul, that is one of the ways we were created in God's image. Please note that my opponent also could not provide or attempt to provide an explanation for evolutionary process.Before I get to my point I would like to make a comment on your attack on the omnipotence of God: This word itself is void. How can we attempt to define God? Just because a word exists, does not mean it can accurately define God. Gods sovereignty overrules that of a finite mind.However, this is besides the point.You have taken me up on my word, that is, to supply undeniable evidence that God exists. Allow me to provide one of twenty-one arguments I have. I would normally choose number 6 but it will not fit resolve my remaining character limit. However, I will provide it in a latter rebuttal. This being said, I will choose the one that will best fulfill my remaining characters, in this case, argument 17: 17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Therefore there must be a God. You either see this one or you don't.I apologize for this argument being so poor, but I promise to provide a better argument in my next rebuttal. ConclusionMy opponent and I have cleared up some misconceptions regarding minor details from the initial impressionist portion of this debate. 1. I have provided a proper counter to my opponents fallacies.2. I have exposed the "veil fallacy" within my opponents arguments (attempt to appear knowledgeable)3. I have provided "undeniable proof" for the existence of God.My opponent now must provide a response solely to the argument I provided in my rebuttal, that is, Argument 17. I also urge my Con not to waste my time any more with the comments made from our earlier openings.Thank you Con for your time and for considering to continue this debate with me.