God Does Exist

I sincerely apologise for my statement about Con's rebuttals. I have a few debates ongoing at the moment and I thought that this debate followed a different structure. Con was right and conformed to the structure of the debate correctly, please ignore my comments around the lack of rebuttals from the debate. Once again I apologise for this mistake on my part.My instance on pointing out that I am not a believer is actually there for cons benefit, so that they can understand my perspective. The statements are not being made in order to score extra points.In this argument I am referring to multiple people believing in a deity of some description. If refer back to my initial argument in which I thought I had made it clear I was talking about multiple people."People believe and actively worship god or gods - https://humanism.org.uk...People make actions based on their beliefs - http://www.econ.ucsb.edu...The action of many people is greater than any individual could achieve"If there are not multiple people that believe in some form of a deity or multiple deities then my argument falls down. However, they are not required to have the same complete opinion of what that god stands for.With regards to belief leading to existence, Con seems to have misread or misinterpreted my argument, that or I did not make my argument clear in the first place. For something to be considered god it must be superhuman, that requires it to show exceptional abilities or powers. So on just the basis of people believing in something, you could not conclude that it exists. It is only when that belief leads to actions greater than any single human could achieve that you could consider the god to exist. Some references backing up that religious beliefs have impacted on the world in great ways, this is just the tip of the iceberg.[R1] - http://www.credong.org...[R2] -http://scottfromsc.blogspot.co.uk...[R3] -http://en.wikipedia.org...My argument is a lot more than word games I belive I am perfectly justified in bringing the definitions forwards. Con has at no point claimed my definitions to be incorrect because they are accurate definitions for the words in use, Con is having problems because they were expecting a typical argument for god existence and they did not receive one. To summarise my rational and Con's responses;Definition of God as given in the God - "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes";Firstly I showed that God is a being that is worshippedCon has not refuted that god is a being that is worshippedI then went on to show that God is superhuman and has power over human fortunesCon has not refuted that actions caused by god are greater than a single person could achieve or that this has an impact on peoples futures.By showing that God is a being, I have shown Existence by the definition; This is the only point that Con is potentially arguing on, he has requested evidence and stated that my argument for existence is ad populem, he has not raised any other valid arguments just reworded the same position. I provided a solid example of how evidence was not required to define something's existence but in this case I have provided evidence of the impact god has on the world, through people. My argument is not on the grounds of "ad populem", I am not arguing that the god/gods that people believe in exist directly but that because their actions are affected by this belief, god becomes real in the impact it has on the world. Con has not refuted the impact god has on the world or that the impact is real.