Be it resolved that no God exists

Before I begin my refutations let me say my opponent is taking a rather narrow-minded approach to this debate. He states "A God would simply refer to as anything believed on by religion. Any figure worshiped would be considered a god"; he then only attempts to disprove the Judea-Christian concept of God, there are many other religions in the world, I will only go through a few. R1. Concessions by my opponent My opponent and I are debating whether A god can exist not whether the Christian-Judea God can exist. My opponent has made several statements conceding the resolution: "let me simply imply that I am my own god". He is saying a god does exist, himself. "Basically, I am a God". This is just obvious. The resolution is a God does not exist. My opponent is claiming they are a god. To my opponent, he is a god. Therefore, god exists. R2. Irrelevancy of my opponent's main points applied to deism Deism teaches the universe is the product of an omnipotent creator but, this creator neither intervenes in human affairs nor suspends the laws of the universe. In deism, god designed the universe but, then stepped back to let it run (also known as clockwork theory). Deists also believe this is all man can know about God and any other doctrines are irrelevant. God has all the power in the world but, chooses not to intervene in humanity. Even with my opponents objections the deist God can still exist as it is not omnipresent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. R3. Irrelevancy of my opponent's main points applied to Pantheism Pantheism teaches the universe and god are identical. The Universe is god. None of my opponent's objections come even close to disproving this teaching as God is not a separate being in the Universe but, the Universe itself. R4. Irrelevancy of my opponents main points to Zoroastrianism This religion teaches there are two main gods, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Neither god was ever created by anything. Ahura Mazda is all that is good. He is good, benevolent, wise, and omniscient but, not omnipotent (but, he does have the power to eventually destroy evil). Ahura Mazda is the creator of the world. Angra Mainyu is all that is evil. Your point about omnipotence is irrelevant as neither is omnipotent. Your point about omnipresence is irrelevant as neither is omnipresent. Your point about omniscience is irrelevant because why does a god have to answer you at the moment you ask? Why does God have to answer you at all? In this religion, Ahura Mazda created the world to be good but, Angra Mainyu corrupted the world and created evil. They are in a constant struggle and Zoroastrianism believes eventually Ahura Mazda will win this struggle defeating evil. The benevolence of Ahura Mazda is canceled out by the evil of Angra Mainyu. R5. Irrelevancy applied to Panentheism Do not mix up Pantheism with Panentheism. The first teaches the universe and god are the same. Panentheism as a whole teaches god is greater than the universe. Certain forms of panentheism teach the universe is a part of god. Once again, none of my opponents points even apply to this belief system. You cannot describe something that is outside of all description. My opponent's points fail when applied to a panentheistic God. R6. My opponents points applied to Christianity Since this is what my opponents points apply to I will go through each one by one. a) Omnipotent—in Christianity, God gave man free will. This simply means God allows man to choose their own fate. Pro is stating because there are problems in the world God cannot exist. But, God gave man free will meaning man has to help themselves. Mankind cannot simply rely on God to solve every single problem. b) Omnipresence—God exists everywhere. That's what this means. God is everywhere. I do not see how my opponent's argument against this is even relevant… c) Omniscience—"he should have known how much suffering would be here. So, why did he act idiotically? " Well despite my opponents obvious disrespect towards Christianity, man has free-will given to them by God. It is through man's own actions that there is suffering in the world. God will not intervene on man's behalf because man has free-will. They choose their own fate. d) Omnibenevolence—my opponent talks about Satan (kind of) saying because Satan exists god cannot be good. In reality, Satan is nothing more than the fallen angel Lucifer. Who freely chose to disobey God and was punished by being sent to Hell. Angels have free will. God is not going to force anyone or anything to love and obey Him. Man and Angels just have to accept the consequences of their actions. R7. The problems with my opponents last argument over the numbers of Gods First of all, YHWH is nothing more than the Hebrew "name" for God. God is the English word for God. Allah is the Arabic word for God. (Allahu Akbar literally means "God is Great"). Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam all worship the exact same God. As in identical Gods. They just have different beliefs about that one God. But, it is the same God. As for Satan, no religion believes Satan "is" God. Satanism does not believe Satan is greater than God. They just worship Satan for various reasons. Who to worship? Well every religion in the world believes they are correct. A person should worship what they believe is the correct belief. Each religion is different and has a different perspective on God, or completely different God(s) altogether. There is only one correct answer. No religion in the world teaches killing is correct, almost every religion in the world teaches some kind of forgiveness (karma can be considered this in a way). Nothing would disagree.