God Is Fake

Last round, time for some fun :)---Here's a synopsis of what I'm going to do in this round: I'm going to respond to everything you said in round 4, correcting your mistakes Then I'm going to point out an argument you dropped Also I'm going to show why asking me to prove god doesn't exist is a red herring (Notice the word choice, "fake", not "non-existent") --- I have conclusively proved that god is fake, just like I have conclusively proved that bigfoot is fake (see round 2). I did mention gnosticism in the last round. I said the best that anyone can do with any scientific claim is an agnostic conclusion of any level of probability. That's another way of saying gnosticism is not possible with scientific laws/theories. I expected you to put that together but I guess I overestimated your ability. The reason that I never mentioned theoretical/practical in the first round is because I didn't think I needed to. The ramming block you are using against me, that "god's non-existence can never be concluded" screams that god is only an imagined/theorectical creature. Bigfoot's non-existence can never be concluded either. Does he live in our imagination or out in the woods? Or in other words, does bigfoot live in theoryworld or practicaland? So you say that I conceded the debate by pointing out that science is exclusively agnostic. That's a red herring. Basically, the red herring is the word "non-existent". The resolution uses the word "fake"; They are 2 different words. Fake creatures like god, or bigfoot exist in only our imaginations. Non-existent creatures haven't even been conceived of or observed, such as post-singularity humans (we don't even have the computing power in our brains to imagine this species, and the human brain is, as of 2014, the most powerful imagination tool. Computers aren't as creative as us in 2014). In your next paragraph you say since nothing practical is 100% certain, the resolution has been negated. In this paragraph you use the word "fake", but you really meant to say "non-existent". See above for the difference between "fake" and "non-existent". ... Things ARE certain in theory. I can't help but overreact at this blasphemy. Is the sum of the squares of two real, positive numbers ever NOT equal to the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle formed by them? NO, NEVER. Things can be certain in theory. You confused "pure theory" (such as mathematical theory) with "scientific theory", and are talking as if they are the same thing. They aren't. Scientific theories actually fall under the practical world in my dichotomy. I know, it's confusing but use your brain and understand what I'm getting at. In your paragraph about curing polio, you are mixing up the words "fake", and "non-existent". I'm ashamed you are doing this so often. See above for the difference. I agree with what you are getting at though if you replace the word "fake" a different word. "A:I see X B:I deduce that X exists in this world."That's nonsense. Vision is photons striking your retina. You can't prove that there's no magic barrier around you that emits photons and creates the illusion of X. You induce that X exists. The scientific community agrees no inductive evidence has ever shown god is real. Unless you have a deductive argument, god's a phony fictional character. But no scientific fact has ever been arrived at through deduction in the last couple centuries of modern science. Good luck with that. Here's a visual to make my dichotomy clear: --- You refused to answer if bigfoot was fake or real. If you think bigfoot is real, no one would take you seriously. The reasons for thinking bigfoot, or god, are real, are the same (round 2). --- Is god fictional? Yes. Just as fictional as bigfoot. Bigfoot fake, God is fake. Parallel reasoning. --- So please, for the love of god, understand the difference between "fake" and "non-existent". If you don't get the difference then I've been talking a wall this whole time. The resolution says "god is FAKE". Thank you.