It is improper to assume the state of existence of God.

Con, you have made things more difficult for yourself than required. In this debate you need not actually prove the existence of God, but merely show why you should not be required to.You and I are speaking of a hypothetical debate in which you assert God exists. I, having conflicting beliefs, do not recognize this as a truth. Why, then, should you not bear the BOP for this specific assertion?I understand this is a point which you feel very strongly about, and I mean no disrespect. But if I were to state that Abortion is not murder, a topic our profiles imply we would disagree on, you would naturally expect me to bear the BOP as to why that is so. The same if you declare Flag Burning is wrong. I would expect you to bear the BOP.Why, then, should the claim “God exists” be treated differently? Why should you not bear the BOP on God’s existence even though you are the one putting that claim forward? I’m sure you would expect me to bear the BOP were I to claim God does not exist.------Now, my opponent has made some very specific arguments about the existence of God. Out of respect for my opponent I will give my counter arguments to these. However, as they are auxiliary to the debate at hand, Con need not feel obligated to address any of my points. I will happily debate him on this subject in a separate debate should he so desire.My opponent’s central point is “The universe exists so we must assume that God has created it.”The universe exists: naturally, this point is indisputable for all intents and purposes.The universe had a beginning, a point when it came into being: all logic and physical evidence would indicate this is true as well.However, this does not speak to the cause of the universe’s origin. That God created it is one valid possibility. But there are many other possibilities as well, either more or less likely depending on your beliefs and point of view. Given that A may have been caused by B, C, D, or E, regardless of the relative probability of each, we cannot say with certainty that simply because A exists then B must be true—likewise with C, D and E. The only thing we can say is given A, then B is possibly true but without additional evidence to constrain the possibilities we can say nothing more.The same goes for the existence of spacetime, and in many ways this is just a restating of the earlier point. Spacetime and the universe are virtually synonymous outside questions regarding high energy physics. The existence of space and time do not, alone nor together, imply the existence of God.Likewise, if I were to claim God must not exist because we do not see evidence of Him (a highly flawed and hotly debated claim in and of itself) that would not be proof of anything. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Proving beyond a doubt the existence or non-existence of God is no easy task. If it were, the question would have been solved thousands of years ago and not been hotly debated by many of the greatest minds of history.We may each feel the question is settled and have no doubt in our minds what so ever. We do not need to justify whatever personal beliefs work for us. But once we express that those are truths which should be universally accepted and adhered to we take on the BOP for why that is so and why all other conflicting beliefs should be rejected.Typically, all we can say is based on all evidence one alternative appears more likely and we personally believe that one to be true. But to absolutely prove that specific one is the undeniable truth is a much more difficult task.