God exists.

By doing so, what you are implying is that existence itself is a quantitative property – i.e. the more influence something has, the more it exists. This contradicts the very nature of existence; something either exists or doesn't, there is no in-between state. You have misinterpreted what i said, i was trying to point out that not this is too broad a curricula and even if it were true quantitive factors would count in. But further proof to why your first premise does not stand i offer the "Unicorn". Unicorns have influenced stories, and myth for ages yet we can both be certain that i will not find a Unicorn prancing in the woods. Furthermore what about a Dragon, or Centaur, or even a Minotaur. All have influence yet none in existence. Thereby proving why influence does not mean existence. Therefore we can look to the CON's definition and vote CON in the round because there has yet to be given evidence of Gods' living and animation. Is it not allowed to pose new arguments outside of the first post? That is all I was doing – I was presenting a new argument which was intended to undermine the "scientific" approach to disproving my case, as we are arguing about something which under no circumstances can be proven by scientific means. If my argument was a fair one, with fair points, it should not matter where in the debate it was posted. It seems that you are simply trying to catch on to an insignificant technicality, while ignoring the meat of my arguments. First off i do Lincoln Douglas debate so i am stuck in that mind frame. Also contradictory to me Ignoring the meat of your arguments i turned your statement to further prove how scientific reasoning, which ought not be bared, in this round once again disproves God. to quote myself, quoting you, If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I understand the scientific arguments that would prove the answer to be "yes" for this question - however when we're discussing the existence of God, we must not look to scientific arguments but rather to philosophic arguments in order to have a 'fair debate' (NOTE; The entire slant of the round is abusive and unfair) Therefore we may once again vote CON because my opponent has negated himself. It is an approximation. I do not have time to spend an hour researching the exact statistics, however with a simply Google search I found two sources which say the percentages are as I've said above. You can be sure that it's not too far off the mark – atheists might make up a large percentage of the internet population, but in the real world they make a pretty small minority. I will negate in turn: 1. you set up this debate therefor proving you have time for frivolous activities, also you gave 72 hours in between posts further proving you did have an hour to research." 2. you didn't list the sources, how can i know they are legitimate. On this not i can not be sure that they are not to far off the mark without sources. 3. This Atheist point has no warrants either. It is irrelevant as long as they believe that there is at least some higher being. Allah, God, Jesus, Buddha, the numerous Hindu gods… they all have their technical differences. However you must understand that beyond those technicalities all these people share the same basic belief in a higher power. This is where you are mistaken, you initially set up the debate saying "God Exists" not gods nor higher powers therefor we must debate in the singular and these examples still support my arguments. Also technicalities is a short way of putting it, if things were just technically different they would be the same otherwise and seeing as their not your entire series of logic falls. I was not assuming that, and I do not think that is relevant either for my original point – that the overwhelming belief of so many people undoubtedly has an effect on society. I do not know what "manipulating" of data you are referring to, and I sure as heck did not engineer any "slippery slope." I'm not sure you know what that is, in the context of your statement. It is entirely relevant in order to support you statement of 6 billion people's beliefs matter and still support you, they must be made under the influence of God, and seeing as you did not prove they were my argument still stands. Furthermore the manipulation of data, i.e. assuming these 6 billion people all made choices due to their faith engineered your slipper slop. (Its a Lincoln Douglas term) The key word here is "just." You are right, it is not "just" a variation of what God is. But it still is in part. And again, for the terms of this debate the "variations of cultures and customs" are irrelevant. Religion is different Gods as i pointed out and my opponent disregarded, therefore once again we can see that not every religion compensates fro this singular god and thus religion in general does not support his position, so my turn stands. Variations in cultures and customs differ religions, as well as number of gods making there importance know helps prove furthermore why God does not exist proving futher of their import. I do not attack this definition because all I must do is defend the terms of the argument in order to win. i disproved yet again your arguments meaning you must and because you did not it stands so we ought to vote CON. God has not influenced Atheists in the same sense that he has influenced religion people, true. However, has, for instance, President Obama "influenced" you? Has he invited you to dinner? Have you discussed politics? I will assume the answer to these questions to be "no." But he has still had some influence on you, albeit indirectly. This entire attack has no logic he merely states God influences aethists then relates it to Obama, therefore we may drop it and extend my position on how his God doesn't influence collectively. ==================================================== The key reason why we ought to be voting CON is due to the monumental concessions made during round 2. My opponent said: My original meaning of the definition of "existence" could be explained very simply with the well known question: If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I understand the scientific arguments that would prove the answer to be "yes" for this question - however when we're discussing the existence of God, we must not look to scientific arguments but rather to philosophic arguments in order to have a fair debate - and in those existential terms, it would be very easy for me to argue that, really, the answer to the above question is "no." If no one knows that the tree exists, than it doesn't exist, because existence is a thing that is only important to specify in relation to human perception. This "human perception" can be replaced by "human influence," and thus we come back to our original definition, which is still perfectly valid. No this supports my side to ways; A) the statement if their is no knowledge of the tree it has no effect/ influence, well turn and i say if an individual has no knowledge of God they can not be influenced, meaning the collective criteria is not met thereby proving God's inexistence. B) My opponent conceded that their is evidence to support my argument that God does not Exist, thereby further proving God's Inexistent. This paragraph will be the only voter in this round.