God Is Fake

Pro begins by offering a list of adjecties to describe what "God" is and claims that he can't "unprove" that God exists because no one proved him. Again, that is not the goal of the resolution nor is that my burden. He keeps trying to wiggle his way out of the resolutiom, but doesn't acknowledge again that he most prove conclusively that God is "fake."You didn't mention gnosticism in an earlier round, actually.My opponent accuses me of shifting the goalposts to the theoretical world. This is laughable. The resolution never specified practical versus theoretical.In fact, God fits into the theoretical world as well as the practical. He argues that this world is full of logic and theory. That is, in fact, the only way that one could argue for the existence of God: you could make a philosophical argument for a prime mover of sorts. That isn't to say that there aren't practical-world applications: realistically, though, science hasn't proved his existence.He then concedes the debate again by saying that "the best anyone can do with any scientific claim is an agnostic conclusion." This is quite right, because things that are deemed true today can be disproved tomorrow, etc. Therefore his argument that something currently unsubstantiated, that has not been disproved, is "fake" is a mere fantasy. He then says that nothing is certain in the real world. Well, Rene Descartes would disagee with you, but let's go along with that. Sure, nothing is certain. You said that we're debating the practical world. If, in the practical world, nothing is certain, then you can't be certain that God is fake. Therefore, you are once again negating the resolution.And, again, I am not allowing you to shift the goalposts to argue merely for the "practical" over "theoretical world." But even if I did, this debate would sitll be in the exact same point. No, things aren't certain in "theory," either. That is why they're theory. Even scientific theories which have been tested again and again are technically not 100% certain because they're falsifiable and the results are available for others to disprove.Pro then misunderstands my argument. I claimed that he was arguing from the basis that I'm a gnostic theist and basing my argument as such. But this is surely not the case.He represents the "thereotical" versus practical model. Again, this is outside the parameters of the debate, and simply because God hasn't been proven yet by science does not make it fake. For all we know, he could be proved 30 or 40 years down the road. There are various medications that have been discovered over the past, let's say, century, that we didn't know of prior to that. Before then, was the possibility of curing polio "fake?" Of course not. But the statement "we will never cure polio" had no truth value because we could never actually know the limits of scientific inquiry.Pro again misunderstands my arguments. I'm not arguing against the idea that God exists in theory, nor am I arguing that he couldn't exist in the practical world. Pro ha snot proven that it is impossible for God to existence theoretically and even admits that he could exist in the so-called practical world. It's also interested that he admitted earlier that God has evidence in the theoretical world.Basically, he's arguing in circles. He then claims that I have to give him a scientific fact discovered deductively. I have no such burden of proof, acutally, so demanding is outside the parameters. But here is one I already gave:A: I see X B: I deduce that X exists in this world.The theory of perception, one compatible with that of Descartes, Reid, and Joel Smith, is inherently deductive.Then he argues that induction is making conclusions about obserations. Wrong. It is arguing from the general to the specific. Arguing from the specific to the general is deduction. But none of this proves his argument. Then he cites a YouTube clip as part of his argument. I will not allow this, however. He has to make the argument himself.