Atheism or Theism

I am an atheist arguing as Devil's Advocate in this debate, yet I am shocked that my opponent continually insists that I offer evidence for God's existence. What evidence does he wish for and would accept? Earlier he said that, "I contend that evidence is subjective." If any evidence I presented would be considered subjective by him, why would he accept it? It would be pointless for me to offer any. I have pointed out several times to him, and had him concede this point, that absence of evidence does not equal absence of existence. For him to continue to insist on this shows he has not thought past my conceded rebuttal and is him using the fallacious Proof by Assertion. I would also like to point out that his attempted refutation of my offered source, Stephen Unwin, was supposedly because Dr Unwin's mathematical finding for God's existence at 67% had a subjective element. If evidence is subjective, then why is my opponent discounting my expert's finding? My opponent tried to build a fallacious strawman argument using an all-loving god. Yet, this quality was not listed in his definition. He tries to weasel out of that by stating it is an accepted quality, yet his earlier definition states our debated God is "commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism". I have pointed out several times that the Bible, Quran and other monotheistic gods are easily demonstrated to not be entirely benevolent. My opponent has ignored this time and again because it shreds his faulty arguments, resulting in him again fallaciously using Proof by Assertion. Because of this, any and all of his arguments that rely on an all-loving god can be discounted. My opponent charges me with playing with semantics on this topic, yet anyone following the debate can see how I clearly felt this was going to be an issue since ROUND 1! It is my opponent that is trying to play semantics, not I. Not once in this debate did he refer to omniscience in his arguments, but he referred to all-loving several times. If it were such an important quality, why didn't he mention it in his definition and leave out omniscience? Next, my opponent tried to use the argument of demographics, that religious groups are gathered in a way more resembling an atheistic universe. This argument was flawed from the beginning because it ignores the idea that all of the examples could be false, which destroys the argument my opponent earlier states that God is incomprehensible. If this is true, then we cannot predict what a theistic universe would look like, it could look EXACTLY like an atheistic one. My opponent conceded this, yet continues to use this faulty & refuted argument. Again, this is the fallacious use of Proof by Assertion! his argument relies on an all-loving god, which as I pointed out earlier, is a fallacious assumption. My opponent has tried to discount my expert's finding of a 67% chance of God existing. He said I was "quote-mining", yet I did not take my expert's view out of context. The finding was presented in the expert's book, The Probability of God which primarily dealt with reaching this value. My opponent was dishonestly attempting to poison the well against me. The legal definition of "a balance of probabilities" means a preponderance of evidence and my opponent states that in this case, the evidence is shared. Yet, he offers no unrefuted evidence for God NOT existing. Basically, he has not not offered any share of evidence. I'd like to point out that if you think that neither of us has offered decent evidence for or against (other than my one expert's finding of 67%) then we are stuck at 50% probability... and with that, I win this debate (my opponent needed to find less than 50% odds). IN CONCLUSION,My opponent has not offered any unrefuted evidence or arguments towards God not existing. In fact, his very statements have contradicted his own arguments (i.e. God is incomprehensible by man & evidence is subjective). Readers should not find in favor of him or that the odds of God existing is 49% or less.On the other side, I have offered an expert who found probability of God's existence at 67%. I have explained why my opponent's arguments against this finding are flawed. Regardless, you do not have to accept this figure to vote for me. If you think, after having read the debate) that the odds are AT LEAST 50% OR MORE IN FAVOR OF GOD EXISTING, then I have won and I ask that you vote in favor of me.