The Christian God Cannot be Proven

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his thoughtful opening argument, and to apologize for what he sees as a breach of conduct. I certainly did not intend any sort of analysis as to what it means to not bear burden of proof, I was simply stating the facts of what burden of proof is. Without spending too much time quarling over the terms of the debate, I would like to note that burden of clash in no way requires me to prove the inverse of the resolution. Burden of clash simply means that I am required to interact with my opponent's argument, rather than simply wax eloquent about another subject. My opponent bears the same burden, in addition to his burden to prove the resolution. If my opponent does not fulfill his burden, he loses the debate. ==On Case== My opponent has provided a definition of "proof" that apparently comes from "Princeton." His lack of citation is likely an oversight, however it makes it impossible to verify the veracity of the definition. However, I will accept that definition provided my opponent provides a citation. However, in addition to the definition my opponent provides he adds that something must be "objective, factual, and falsifiable." What he does not add is any support of this criteria. The "Princeton" definition does not include this, nor does any other dictionary definition I was able to find. Simply put, my opponent's definition does not hold water since it is simply a bald definition with no support. Not only does his definition lack support, it is contradictory to common sense. There are many different kinds of proofs. In a court of law, proof need not be falsifiable, it need only eliminate the shadow of doubt. In math we can demonstrate by proof that certain mathematics principles exist. In fact, according to Princeton's definition, it need only be factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something. My opponent's entire argument rests on undercutting the arguments for God by means of semantic exclusion. This is a worthy tactic, however my opponent has not provided any support for the addition to the definition provided by Princeton. My opponent then argues for "Truth without proof." He argues that "Gravity is accepted as a law of nature, but realistically there is no proof that the force we call 'gravity' really exists." He seems then to limit proof to the basic five senses. What boggles the mind however, is that immediately after saying that we cannot feel gravity he then says that we can experience the effect of gravity. Is that not the same thing? He says that a ball does not fall because of Gravity, but because of the effects of gravity. Is the effect of gravity not the force called gravity exerting an influence on an object? This leads us to the final question that must be answered. Do the proofs that my opponent claims are beyond the definition my opponent presented? The answer of course is "Absolutely not." My opponent urges us to recognize that "we need to be careful not to mistake logic and personal conviction for empirical evidence." He is absolutely right that we should not mistake logic for empirical evidence. However, where he is wrong is that empirical evidence is not the only type of proof that there is. Finally, a question I would like you as the reader to answer is this: Is my opponent's argument "proof" in the definition that he provides (I.E. it must be empirical), or is it a logical proof. If it is a logical proof, then my opponent has constructed a self defeating argument, as he cannot possibly fulfill the burden of proof by providing something that does not constitute proof. As he has not fulfilled his burden of proof, he must be declared the loser. Thank you.