God, as defined by the (Christian) Bible, is not real.

Good day to Con, readers and debaters. As per Con this round follows thusly - 'Round 4 is the rebuttal. No new arguments please.' 'So you see, infinity can not be brought up in this argument because of it's characteristic of being illogical in principle.' This is self refuting of Con's defence of my assertions re - God of the Christian Bible. On all 3 points I have raised an infinite quality/quantity of 'X' is the attribute Christian's give to God. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... All my points remain, Con has failed as he has now acceded to a finite God, which is not what Christian doctrine dictates God to be. That is all I have to rebut regarding the points I have raised in this debate. A few minor points for rebuttal. ' I believe your words were: "Con's refutation can be justified thusly - (link)"' - Wrong, do not misquote, it is lazy, especially when the information is directly above. Actual Quote - 'Con's attempted refutation of my 'Creator's creator' arguments can be justified thusly ' Contradictory Point - 'Now as you know, I stated no new arguments in round 4. And lucky me, my opponent presented all of my arguments for me, in the evidence that he provided. So carry over all argument that the Pro made in the evidence provided, as they are now my attacks as well. It is now pro's responsibility to refute those attacks as well as show his attacks full proof.' You claim you make no new arguments, but you'd like to state now in round 4, that you'll have all of the arguments some other guy makes in another debate? (Who did offer up his own evidences for God's existence, please note this) I have no refutations to make to someone else's arguments in another debate, who, regardless of your not understanding which position to choose in a debate in regards to the resolution, was also Pro with a similar Subject matter, please make sense! 'Notice that in Ockham's Razor, it says the simplest is 'most likely' the true choice. It does NOT, however, say that it is always the truth. Pro has used a flawed device, as it does not prove god untrue, he only shows it's unlikely. Maybe Pro doesn't understand that he must prove this negative 110% true because of the position he is in. Maybes and most likelys simply don't cut it in the realm of proof.' Unlikelihood in a sublime perfect being refutes that it can be sublime and perfect, point remains. 'Tell me, how does this refute the point? God can ruin himself, but he doesn't, so he can still be all knowing, all powerful, and all present. This doesn't refute my point at all. Please explain the connection, because right now, you don't have one.' What room is there for doubt and possibility of God ruining himself in a sublime perfect creator? This would not occur if the tenets of Christian doctrine held true, it would be impossible to point out a flaw in something, which in fact is self decreeing to be perfect? 'As per Con for further reading.' Those are the words I wrote. I did not use Con's arguments from a previous debate as my own, only to show that these are the opinions he wanted to put across if I adopted the position in this debate that he would have wanted me to. The point of using these quotes was also to illustrate the inherent flaw in condemning one person for saying something similar to yourself, this is not plagiarism; these terms and methods of debate are used frequently in religious discourse. To end I would to quote Con, once more - 'I suppose I will go against my very grain as a person and argue for the existence of God.' Vote which way you think you should.