People should stop trying to prove or disprove that god exists.

Alright yall, I'ma simplify this debate. Oh wait, haha, that's not possible. 1) ABUSE: FIRST LEVEL: PART I: Alright so I'd like to make it clear to all that are reading this debate that the PRO on his R1 that he gave me the choice to either prove or disprove the existence of God. ---"I'm saying that, as far as god exists, there is no proof that he exists or doesn't exist. Your side of the debate is providing evidence that either proves or disproves he exists. " --- However, when I chose to disprove the existence of God. .. . Ninjanuke - "You WANT him to prove theres a god. .. Which is not possible. " He gave me a choice and then rebuked it, essentially wasting the a whole round, and effectively the only round I had to make any new arguments. PART II: Mdal - "A more interesting argument is the meta-argument first suggested by olivemike81, about whether debating on the truth or lack there of to God's existence. " Again, he gives me the choice and then rebukes it. SECOND LEVEL. I've already told y'all in my R2 that if you want to go full logos and just not take into consideration irrational things that come out of that same line of reasoning then FINE, the Pro wins. But he's also. .. . Mdal - ". .. I think that olivemike81 made the debate near impossible for Korezaan when he makes this debate about whether Korezaan can provide evidence for God's existence[. .. ]However as of right now I would like to point out that the burden of proof normally rests on AFF in debates like this. .. namely that AFF needs to prove that debates on god are useless, vs all CON needs to prove is NOT THAT. " I disagree with 'near impossible. ' It is FULLY IMPOSSIBLE. If this debate was actually the way the PRO stated in R1, "This is a debate about the futility of trying to prove god exists or not", then I've already won because I've given a way to disprove his existence. Since we can't find any evidence to believe in god, then we shouldn't believe in him. He then says that this doesn't disprove his existence. He then brings up how we didn't believe in the existence of germs and stuff, just because we didn't see them. I will agree full heartedly to this argument. .. . to the point that it ONLY says that much. "Does that mean germs don't exist? No. It took the invention of the microscope to prove they existed. The lack of evidence for a god (just like germs) does not mean there is no god. " Uhh. I think I already refuted this point. In my R2 I specifically quoted Al: "[. .. ]But the problem with this argument is that you really can't prove or disprove the existance of pretty much anything outside of abstract areas like mathematics or predicate logic. You can't prove that werewolves don't exist. You can't prove that Invisible Pink unicorns don't exist. You can't prove that carniverous humanoid underground dwellers don't exist. Technically this means we have to be agnostic about the existance of invisible pink unicorns and everything else. But we'd feel rather silly if we had to admit that there is a remote chance that Santa Claus really does exists building those wooden toys that no kid ever gets for Christmas. " And SINCE science is never complete and SINCE the PRO side can be FREAKIN safe by making that claim, they can ALWAYS say that "we havent gotten enough technology to find him yet". AND EVEN IF WE REACHED THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE TECHNOLOGICAL LEVEL, THEY CAN MERELY SAY: "it's silly to try to CONVINCE someone into either belief OR unbelief. "(topher) yeah, I'd say that this debate is complete abuse towards the CON. So this is what the round breaks down to. You have 13 reasons to vote CON. A) he doesn't show you how I'm circular B) he's using that only to provoke skimmers to vote PRO C) he never proves that I'm using nonfalsifiable arguments D) I show you every reason behind my points whereas he just says "just because we can't find him doesn't mean he's not there" and I've just refuted that E) HE HAS NO OFFENSE WHATSOEVER BECAUSE he never links "futility" to "People should stop trying to prove or disprove that god exists. " He never says why futility means that people suddenly have a moral reason to stop debating the existence or not of god. F) Abuse on two levels. G) He is using nonfalsifiable argumentation. As Albert explains: "Scientific theories have to at least logically admit a possible counterexample, or some experimental result that could prove the theory to be false. Nonfalsifiable theories are theories that by their design couldn't possibly be shown to be false. For example, metaphysical solipsism is a nonfalsifiable belief. Solipsism is the idea that your perspective encompasses the whole of reality and that the external world and everyone in it is only a mental creation of your own. You can't disprove solipsism because any evidence of an external reality could be explained as being yet another of your mental creations. Nonfalsifiable beliefs are often very conveniently packaged. Many conspiracy theories are also nonfalsifiable. (to off camera) Well of course the investigators found a weather balloon instead of a spaceship, man. The fact that they didn't find any extraterrestrial artifacts just shows you how much the government is covering it all up, man. There are no witnesses because the men in black wiped everyone's memory. They also wiped their memory of having their memory wiped. Believe me, this thing goes deep. Nonfalsifiable beliefs aren't very useful because they place themselves above scientific inquiry. There's no end to the number of nonfalsifiable ideas we could believe in, but a belief in any of them requires a leap of faith. " H) I could defeat his R2's GERM argument, his only true point, by saying just this: True, we didn't believe in the existence of germs because we didn't see them, and we were wrong about them not being there. But the thing is, PRO's whole perspective is based upon the idea that science has dogmatic characteristics like religion. However, science doesn't think that it has all the answers, as religions do. He loses the argument again on two levels. I) First, because it means we have to be agnostic about everything. Refer to Albert and the Invisible Pink Unicorns WHICH HE NEVER REFUTED BY THE WAY, and since silence is consent and that was his last round, that means he agrees that people should believe in their existence along with vampires, the easter bunny, and everything else. J)Second, because this sort of belief justifies anything. It's abuse on A THIRD LEVEL: You can't disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, because they don't want to show themselves to us. K) OH WAIT, then he can turn around and take the other side too, because his side is "futility" and my side is "not". Essentially what he has done is create a moving advocacy, something that I can never truly attack on a pure logical level, therefore creating ABUSE THREE. L) IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL READING THIS DEBATE TO UNDERSTAND that the PRO has done a lot to muddle up this debate and is trying to get a free win. Sorry if this R3 looks incoherent. But that's how much space it needs to take. His position is clear from the start that it's abusive. At any given point in the debate, he can switch to the other side. He gives himself room to go either pro-god or anti-god, and has used nonfalsifiable arguments to bring himself above the attackable grounds. You shouldn't be voting for a guy that employs tactics like that. M) I have already given you a fully rational way to stop believing in the possible existence of God.