There is undeniable evidence that God exists

First, I must explain why I asked my opponent for his definition of "undeniable evidence." I am not stupid—I know what it means. But again, I want to ask what he would find "undeniable evidence" or "evidence that is undeniable." If my opponent does not answer my question with what he would find specifically as "undeniable evidence" then it will simply make my opponent look uncomfortable giving me what he would find "undeniable evidence." I don't want my opponent to tell me that he wants undeniable evidence, I want my opponent to give me what he would find as undeniable evidence, not tell me "evidence that is undeniable." I would clearly ask that my opponent stop trying to get around it and answer the question. Also, he can deny my evidence all he wants. That's not the resolution. The resolution states: There is undeniable evidence that God exists. The definition of undeniable doesn't say, "Anything that Tatarize finds undeniable." My evidence is undeniable, and he has failed to prove ANY evidence otherwise. As for my opponent saying, "Well Marvell comics just depicted the election of Barack Obama so clearly the X-Men are real." I would like to point out that we aren't talking about comic books, we're talking about historical documents (in this case, the Bible). Unless my opponent is suggesting comic books are historical documents, then he has given me a silly analogy and yet again has failed to attack my case directly, but is trying to stumble around the argument. Secondly, my opponent can deny my testimony, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that doesn't mean there was no supernatural intervention. And I find it rather humorous that my opponent is trying to explain MY happening with reasons such as "rags aren't hard to come by." He's sounding desperate, nitpicking at everything at my very own story. It is illogical to deny my experience! It is illogical to deny the other testimonials I gave. Has my opponent had any experiences with evolution? Of course not. Thirdly, my opponent says, "I pointed out exactly why your supposed evidence for God was nothing of the sort. Evidence for 10th century artifacts are seen to be instantly evidence for the Empires of David and Solomon." This fact is useless if he doesn't provide evidence to support his logic. But I have provided some archaeological findings that relate to King David's kingdom in my previous rounds. Here's even a picture of a stone stele with records of King David (http://www.mfa.gov.il...). Fourthly, my opponent brought up, "Many of the Egyptian hieroglyphs include stories about gods. Am I to believe that those are real too? If so, are you to start worshiping Ra?" This is a desperate assumption made by my opponent. I was not talking about their gods, I was talking about the historical content of it. Look again at what I said: "My opponent stated, "They are explaining and glorifying a past that didn't actually happen by taking from the works of the surrounding culture." This is like saying: the Egyptians wrote hieroglyphs about their lives, but they were all just stories that "didn't actually happen by taking the works of the surrounding culture." Remember: the Bible is a historical record, not a bunch of made-up stories bunched into a book." My opponent knows noted that the Egyptian gods were stories. Perhaps he could actually attack my case instead of fumbling around for arguments that have nothing to do with our debate topic. Fifthly, my opponent says, "When we check out what they wrote and look at their real past, we find a completely different story." Please give me an example for this, and when you try, you'll find your claim is not true. My opponent talked about how the texts progressed into what we have today. Would you like to know how many times the Bible has been translated? Once. We translated the Bible we have today from the original Greek Bible. (http://4simpsons.wordpress.com...) It seems you're confused on the process of translating the Bible. Sixthly, my opponent says, " Pointing out that just magicking god into the picture is unacceptable because you could just as easily assume the universe exists." That's not what I'm saying. God created "the picture." But the universe itself was indeed created by Him. Time was created by Him. He didn't have to be created—He is the Creator. The origin of "the point" where the universe came from is still under question. The Big Bang, evolution, etc. are still all theories. God, however, is not a theory. Nevertheless, my opponent brings up, "The theory of evolution is a theory because it is a model to understand the world. It explains a large set of data with a robust set of facts which has been repeatedly tested over 150 years and always has proved triumphant." According to Merriam Webster's dictionary, a theory is: an unproved assumption. How can evolution be "proved triumphant" if it is still "an unproved assumption"? In many ways, my opponent has tried to get off track of the debate. So now, I ask my opponent to bring up evidence that God doesn't exist. His intention was to tear down my arguments, and for the last round, I would like to see some evidence (that is not theoretical) that God doesn't exist. In these past few rounds, I have given evidence after evidence, and yet my opponent continues to make assertions without proof. He also disclaims any evidence I have given, despite any authenticity. My opponent says "No, no, no" to all of my arguments, but he DOES NOT provide ANY evidence to back up his statements! They are illogical and absurd assumptions with NO PROOF. If you look at everything my opponent claims, he has no reason to back anything up except his own ideas. Yet, I have provided evidence after evidence to support my reasoning, and I've even included a personal story, which cannot be denied. Conclusively, his PBS video assumed there was a God involved with Israel, and if the video he provided says there is a God, then it would mean my opponent believes in a God. Therefore, I respectfully ask for a vote on the affirmative. Thank you.