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

Hello. This has been an exciting debate so far, and now I will rebut, and hope that my arguments hold Pro's final rebuttal. I thank Pro for his timely response, and we shall begin. 'I have offered argument against God's existence, Con has offered none for God's existence' As stated, I am Con. My job is to refute the points you make. If I can refute your points, or show that you are wrong, I win by default, however odd it may seem in this case. The Pro made a 'booboo' so to speak, when he accepted the challenge of having to prove a negative. As long as I show he hasn't proven that negative, the round will go to me. This is all that was meant by the Burden of proof argument, and for the sake of not repeating the same thing I have before, I will leave it to the voters to decide if that point is legitimate. Bible Validity Alright, as my opponent agreed, we will let this 'be'. Omnipresent I will break this up into two points. Alright, my previous argument did not seem to hold scrutiny, so I will present a different twist. That twist is that God can be everything, and yet not be everything. Basically, that infinity is not comprehensible, because of flaws within the ability to rationalize it. For example. There are an infinite amount of positive numbers, and an infinite amount of negative numbers. But, it's only logical that there are more numbers period, then only positive numbers. So you see, infinity can not be brought up in this argument because of it's characteristic of being illogical in principle. Creator's Creator I would like to point out, that in the debate linked I am on the right side. My intent of this debate was to be on Con, I merely turned the resolution inside out. I just didn't want the Pro having false preconceptions. Anyway, I wish I could see you, so I could slap you. Using my own arguments from a different debate against myself: That's just wrong. Anywho, you failed to explain what the evidence you proposed means. You say that your evidence will justify your claim, but you do not say how. Providing evidence, and not explaining it, is a big debate no no. So because you did not interpret it, I have to do that myself. I believe your words were: "Con's refutation can be justified thusly - (link)" So does he mean that my arguments can be justified to be true by following this link? I followed the link, and found a whole lot of stuff saying that God does exist. Because my opponent did not interpret the evidence he provided, then the interpretation I provided must go. And I have interpreted as not only proving my argument correct, but showing Jesus to be 100% true. A Side Note 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. "Assertions to no make fact. So prove it." Yes Pro, I did say that. But that's because I was Con, and my opponent was Pro. It was his job to PROVE what he said, and not assert it. You can't stick this to me,because I am not pro. You are, therefore you have an obligation to PROVE that there can in no way be the God mentioned. "This extra medium of god is ridiculous" 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. Omnipotent Notice, voters, that the opponent gave two possibilities. Both of them, to work, would necessitate the existence of God. So, according to my opponent, God must exist. Regarding the stone, this is the same as the next argument. Omniscient 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. Ok, here is a little problem. You have created an inherent paradox, in order to trick me, and all of the voters. I only just realized it myself. You are using me, to refute me. But if I am wrong, then I can't be worthy of proving myself wrong, which means I'm right, and the cycle continues. The Pro's evidence is flawed and should not be used, because of the way he presented it. In laymen terms : The pro says that I am right, to prove I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong, then I can't be right. If there was never something right, then how on earth was I proved wrong? You see, my opponent accepted a debate, and then realized he had an impossible task ahead of him: Proving a negative. He has used many ruses to try and trick you, and has attempted to undermine the very core rules that debate stands on. Don't allow my opponent to play you like a fool, and puppet you into being comforted by false pretenses, baseless illusions, and incoherent arguments that my opponent relies on. Vote Con. Thank you.