The Illuminati Doesn't Exist

Okay so now lets take a look at some of my adversaries claims and rebuttals, and then I will offer my rebuttal to them along with re-framing some initial points. Claim 1He claims that he has given facts to support his theory, so lets review some of his facts. "A fact that I gave is that the "Illuminati" name isn't even a government control group that most people think it is. I showed that it is a group that promotes women's rights and gender equality. I also showed that the Zionists and Free-masons that are supposedly aligned with the Devil and are part of the Illuminati have no affiliation with either. " "The overseeing eye was actually used on the $1 bill to represent America's freedom, not a government control group.""First off, with the exposure that is now on this so called "Illuminati", those celebrities definitely wouldn't be allowed to use those symbols. Secondly, and this is just a personal theory, but celebrities most likely only use those signs to generate publicity from people unwise enough to do their research on the Illuminati and come to a conclusion that it is a false theory. Yes it's negative publicity, but it's still publicity, and publicity means more money in the pocket."All of these claims he made tie together so I will go piece by piece. He says the all seeing eye is a symbol of our freedom, but yet has provided nothing to support this other than what he has typed. Also if it is a symbol for our freedom, he would then have to explain why it shows up with people who are supposedly associated with the Illuminati. He will then claim, it is a way to market certain schemes and make money. Again this is not a fact, but a theory. He claims he has giving facts to support this but has not. He has merely indicated what he believes with his own line of logic. The premise of this debate is that the Illuminati does not exist. His BOP is to show that without a doubt. Let me tackle 3 definitions and explain how illogical some of his arguments are. Fact- A piece of evidence presented as having objective reality. 2- the quality of being actualEvidence - To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.Theory - a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action. http://www.merriam-webster.com...So let us look at how these 3 things work together. A fact is an objective principal. 2 + 2= 4 is a fact. A lot of birds migrate is a fact. We know these as objective truths, but how do we know this? We know this by evidence. Evidence to support these assumptions would be basic mathematical principals or videos and studies that show birds migrate. A theory is arrived at by a belief. It is a scientific assumption that something is logically possible, and then you have to show evidence to support this. Once it is proven as truth it becomes an objective reality. So lets look at my opponents claims. The first is that the all seeing eye, was used as a symbol for freedom. This could be the case but he failed to mention every other thing engraved in the one dollar bill. Everything that could logically show that there is an Illuminati, with all the details about the colonies and figureheads on it. It even can hypothetically show the day the organization was formed. Also lets take a look at the eye. The eye itself was originally associated with a Egyptian God named Horus who was the Sun God. Also Horus itself stands for "Morning star or light bringer", which is a direct claim and name to Lucifer. So to say it has no satanic founding is not so much true. Even if it where a symbol for freedom, why pick such a controversial topic. It could be argued it represents Jesus from this perspective because Jesus and Lucifer often share some of the same Greek and Latin names. Since you like the word logic so much why pick an eye that could represent lucifer and knowing everything it stands for? That just does not add up logically. I also have shown facts to represent that it could have possible satanic foundations as well. To demonstrate my previous points view the images belowThis is eye on the dollar, and the eye associated with the Illumanti. This is eye of Horus the Sun God. Going back to my definitions, my adversary has not provided facts. He has cited personal opinions, or developed a theory, which is why I called his argument illogical. The same line of thought that he is using to disprove this topic can also be used to do the opposite. Saying they do not exist, and that the government is using this as a way to make money is not a fact. It is not an objective truth. It is speculation by circumstantial evidence. Thus we can label this a theory. With a theory that has no factual evidence to support it, we can also label it an opinion. Thus he has not met his BOP. I on the other hand have presented facts and sources to support my claims. While they may be labeled as theories as well, that is unavoidable in this topic. Seeing as how most of it is speculation. The difference is I have shown sources and evidence that are objective truths to ground my argument. Again I will state the case in A + B = C logic. A(the eye was Representative of a Sun God which had symbolic meaning and similarities to Lucifer) + B ( this eye was chosen and placed by our ancestors on the dollars bill knowing it was controversial) = C ( It could viably mean the Illuminati does exist and has satanic foundations). That line of thinking is backed with evidence that I have shown to be objective. His argument is this. A(personal thoughts) + B(personal thoughts) = C ( logical answer using his own subjectivity)http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...http://www.abovetopsecret.com...http://www.touregypt.net...Claim 2He states that my argument where I said it could possibly be a metaphor is a theory within itself. I stated this very obviously in my argument supporting this. I also then stated how I could arrive at this conclusion. I was making this point to show by using his logic, you could logically assume anything. An example would be Turtles are green.Sammy is a turtle.Therefore Sammy is green.This line of thought is a fallacy, due to the fact it does not take into consideration variables that define what color turtles can be. This is the same line of thought he has approached this argument with, and the same line of thought I used to make this point. The only difference is I can account for some of the variables. I even have shown where some celebrities addressed this directly in songs and videos. Again he offers nothing but speculation. In closingPro has dug his own grave in this debate. He has claimed they do not exist, and opted to argue a negative. He is then left with the BOP to prove in fact they do not exist. He must do this with providing objective evidence to support his claims. He in stead has offered nothing but speculations and thoughts. He may have had an easier challenge if he would have made the debate " It is illogical to believe in the Illuminati" or " The Illuminati most likely does not exist", but that is not the case. He has claimed they do not exist, and must show and support this claim which he has failed to do so. I in turn have shown how it is a distinct possibility they could exist, and even how some people have arrived at this conclusion. I have addressed everyone of his arguments, and offered a response using objective facts. Where as he has still offered nothing but personal opinions. Until he is able to show that they do not exist, using objective facts the most logical explanation is to believe that there is always a possibility that they could actually exist. Thank you.