The religious need to prove God, not visa versa.

I would like to point out immediately that my opponent has shifted goalposts in this debate and is no longer arguing for his initial statement alone. My main contention is that he holds the burden of proof and has not provided any evidence for his claim thus far.I will get to this point after I begin my opening statement with some definitions I feel are necessary (needed) for my point to be understood [1]:Need (vb)- "To require (something) because it is essential or very important.""To be under the necessity of or the obligation to.""To require or be required of necessity (to be or do something); be obliged.""Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."Prove (vb)-"To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.""Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument."God (n)- "(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; Supreme Being."*"Rediculous" (adj)-"Rediculous means a bad argument, not valid and actually evidence against god."*Note that this was defined by my opponent in a different context, and I am not accusing my opponent of his use of it in this debate to mean exactly that. We can take it to mean an argument that actually supports the opponent's position. [2]The last two are less relevant, and as there are many very different common definitions or ideas as to what constitutes a god, my opponent may redefine "god" if he so desires. The last word you might think silly for me to define, but its relevance will be apparent later.It is the first word that really matters. As I mentioned previously, it might be said that a definition of "need" is needed (essential and very important) for my argument to be properly understood.Opening ArgumentThis is the position I was presented with: "The religious need to prove God, not visa versa."At first it was confusing what the opponent meant with his vice versa. Was he saying that god did not need to prove the religious?. Fortunately, he clarified in Round 1 (a clarification that was not given for the word "need"), by elaborating further: "Atheists should not have to try to disprove a deity, but rather, the religious should try to prove one."In this debate, I will hold the position that in order for my opponent to defend his case properly and win he must do these things:1. He must provide convincing evidence for his statement "The religious need to prove God." 2. He must provide convincing evidence for his statement "not visa versa," which from his Round 1 statement we can take to mean "Atheists do not need to disprove God."I will start off my argument by granting him the second point. This means that he simply must show that the religious are required or obligated to demonstrate the existence of a god by evidence or argument.This is no simple task.In order for there to be any objectivity when it comes to the word "need," additional information must be given. Take this sentence for example: "Water is needed for human survival." This statement can either be supported or refuted by evidence. By omitting or not providing a context, the statement is taken to mean "in general" or "in all contexts." My opponent's initial argument is that it is necessary for the religious to prove God. This is an opinion and a subjective use of the word "need" that he has not been able to defend. Why are the religious required to prove God? Is there some force in the universe that dictates the necessity of the religious to prove God? Without a situation stated, the concept of necessity is mostly useless, especially in formal debate.The only way the opposition can defend this statement as an absolute or objective statement is to give the origin of its absoluteness. Does this sound familiar? Does my opponent actually believe in God or some sort of metaphysical origin of this absolute? Is this not "rediculous?"If my opponent does not invoke any sort of transcendent or supernatural basis for this belief, I do not see how he can defend that the religious simply must prove God. Why do the religious need to prove God or strive to? Why is this necessary?Now some may have qualms about my argument. One might ask, "But can't context be implied?" Yes. For example, a person who is hungry makes the statement "I need food." It is clear that this is not that sort of universal/absolute statement and that the context is "to no longer feel hunger." The difference is that this is a formal debate, and there was no implied specific situation given or even hinted at in which the religious would need to prove God. I hold the position that his argument should be taken as it first appeared and that my opponent should not be allowed to defend a different position. Just read his opening statement in Round 1. If this was not his meaning, then he should have made it clear instead of continuing to argue for these absolutes.Unless he can give a reason why a theist is obligated to prove god in any context or situation and just in general, his statement should be taken as nothing more than a subjective opinion Without invoking some absolute authority or providing context (for example, an "in order to" statement) there is no absolute "should." Would you argue that people should, for example, quack? That it is simply how the universe works? No, I do not think so. Now maybe one could argue that in order for people to imitate a duck, they should quack, but that is an entirely different statement. I am not trying to create a straw man for my opponent, nor am I attempting to play some sort of semantic game. He is at fault if he meant to argue a different position.Also from his statement "They came up with the concept, so I believe that they should prove it, not we disprove" it can be determined that the opposition is of the opinion that when people come up with a concept, they should have to defend it. Now why he thinks this, I do not know. The burden of proof is on him to justify this, but I will point out that he immediately contradicts this belief when he says "I can say that Pandas came from Andromeda."He told us that the creators of concepts must defend their concepts. He then invented a concept and then did not defend it.His self contradiction is evident. Unless he can display that he did not come up with this concept, the opponent has contradicted his position.RebuttalSo far the opponent has hardly defended his position at all. In Round 2, he simply shifted the goalposts, by now adding a context in the form of the statement "for it to be taken seriously."I would agree with my opponent that in disputes between theists and atheists, theists carry the burden of proof, but this argument is a red herring. Note that he did not initially mention anything about the burden of proof.He has in some way stuck to his original argument. As we can see, my opponent feels that "it was his job to prove it" in regards to Einstein. But Einstein was not the creator of the mentioned concept, so is my opponent now implying that everyone or certain individuals are obligated to prove concepts invented by other people? Shouldn't he then be trying to prove God?While I believe that the majority of his following points were valid, he has offered no defense of his initial statement. It seems to me that his argument is as follows:Those who invent concepts are obligated to prove or attempt to prove them.The religious came up with the concept of God.Therefore, the religious are obligated to prove or attempt to prove God.It falls upon my opponent to provide evidence for his premises. He has supported neither so far, and simply made assertions without evidence.In conclusion, you can see that I have not tried to prove God, but have argued that my opponent bears the burden of proof to support his statement.[1] thefreedictionary.com; The Oxford College Dictionary[2] http://www.debate.org...