The Illuminati Doesn't Exist

This will be a short closing statement, because by pros last remarks he has pretty much conceded. He says that he can not disprove they do not exist but can offer reasons as to why they probably do not. Offering reasons as to why they do not exist, is not proof they do not exist. Again this is speculation and you can justify anything with this. In his own words he says. "Once again, my point here isn't to provide concrete evidence to prove my point" This is incorrect and he has almost surrendered the debate at this point. When he claims something does not exist, he must offer up concrete evidence to support it. Not provide theories with his own line of logic. He then goes on to quote an article without citing any sources. Let us again take a look at this. He says that someone wrote an article and in it states that the eye of providence is a symbol of freedom. This is not backed by any research of his own, but rather just taking what someone else says and believing it. I have shown that in fact the eye is linked to Egyptian mythology and has ties to the name Lucifer. Even if we take this article as evidence to support his claim it is definitely not concrete. My arguments are way stronger on this topic. I have shown .org and some history sites that in fact document the eye as a Egyptian symbol with ties to Lucifer. If we are to go off strictly evidence my argument is much stronger. He ends the debate with this quote. " The bottom line is; It's all about using your brain. Think about this; Does the Illuminati theory make that much sense? No." This is such an incoherent statement that it is hard to respond to. If this line of logic was accepted Christianity itself would not be accepted by 90 percent of america. Also dinosaurs would have never existed, the big bang would not have occurred, and quantum mechanics would be all semantics and not facts. Because something makes no sense, does not mean that it could actually happen. Our universe randomly spawned with quantum fluctuations. The probability of this happening is so minuscule it is hard to comprehend but here we are. If his statements were backed by actual evidence rather than speculation , it would be a more logical argument. The only thing he has offered up is personal opinions and one article that he did not bother to research. In closing Pro has not fulfilled his BOP. He has offered logical reasons that align with his own perspective as to why the Illuminati may not exist. None of which is grounded with facts or evidence. In his final remarks he states, he cant not actually prove they do not exist. At this point this debate is over. He has even acknowledged he did not meet his BOP. I on the other hand have offered valid reasons as to why they may exist. I have shown sites and sources to back my logic. I have also addressed each of his contentions and shown how some people can actually believe the Illuminati does exist. I have met my goal and undermined his arguments while making and establishing my own points. In the end he acknowledges that he can not prove the topic he chose. The resolution has not been fulfilled and I have established a clear and logical case. I offer this with my last words. This is his own words once again. "Once again, my point here isn't to provide concrete evidence to prove my point" Thank you