Because there are Nonbelievers, God does not exist.

"Besides the fact that this is not your premise, which is "the existence of non-believers nullifies the existence of God", you did not define "Christian", "God", nor did you present any Christian theology, claim to be a Christian theologist, claim to believe in Christian theology, nor can you explain the differences between a "Christian God" and any other "god" which would be considered the one true Creator God- which happens to be the "Christian" God according to their beliefs." First of all, I made it evident in my opening argument as to which deity I am specifically mentioning, which is the Christian conception of god. Must I really define everything for my opponent, from Christian to God? It is evident that I am addressing the largest of the three Judeo-Christian religions, Christianity. Christianity already has its own definition of God, and I stated that I will include the stated "omni" attributes as part of the premises in my argument. Even though all three of these religions are similar in many ways, they also differ. Whether or not my argument against the Christian god is relevant to the other two Abrahamic religions is of no importance. It is pleasing to the eye that my opponent has done his homework and shown how the origins of the Christian god is related to many other religions. However, this does not mean that this debate isn't still about the Christian conception of God. I can't see how my opponent see's this as a difficult thing to understand; I am making an argument against the God in Christianity. I never stated that this would be an argument against the conceptions of god in every other religion, just the one in Christianity. My opponent has horribly digressed from the initial intention of this debate, and it seems that once again I will have to address his faulty points without even tampering with my opening argument. "You did so without providing a definition of what it means for you to be saved, nor did you claim to adhere to this belief. Neither have I. How is this verse relevant to our discussion? It's not." -I does not matter whether or not my opponent and I are believers. This verse is relevant because it shows clearly what the Christian God desires; for all of mankind to be saved, and this would have been a crucial point I will address in my argument.My opponent asks for the definition of being "saved". Though there are different versions of getting "saved", it basically entails liberation from hell. I would expect my opponent to have even this rudimentary knowledge of Christianity at hand. "The attributes of God are not essential to my argument that he exists. They are essential to YOUR argument. YOU argue those points." -I do not argue these points, the Christian doctrines and tenets assert these points. I derive an argument from such attributes, AND the fact that the Christian God desires for all of mankind to be saved. This combination of characteristics and desires of the Christian conception of God is crucial to my argument against Christianity. I did not make these attributes, the Christians did. "You've stated this, but have not addressed how it relates to your argument. I can't argue against something that is not explained, or a point that is not made. What is your point?" -The point would tie in if my opponent were to read my opening argument. I gave him a clear syllogism, and he has failed to comprehend it. It basically maintains that because reasonable doubters exist, then God must not exist if he were to carry the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence for this would be a contradiction. My opponent has failed thus far to challenge the logic and reasoning of this argument, a discussion that I hoped to expand upon as the debate progresses. However, as evident it seems this won't happen for my opponent's misconstrues. "Perfect science is the state of the laws of science regardless of our knowledge about them. It is the science that is indisputable, like perfect math (10/10=1). Science that is indisputable would amount to, say, the Earth revolves around the Sun. This is science that is not logically disputable, yet in the past it was disputed by those who had no knowledge of science. It was not only disputed, but it was condemned as heresy. Again, if perfect science can be questioned, not believed, and condemned as heresy so can the existence of God. The fact that non-believers exist does not nullify the existence of God." -Science is not perfect. There is always a remote possibility that well-placed facts such as the Earth revolves around the sun, could be wrong. The reason why it was not known back then was because science was in its infancy. Science always progresses, and has a built-in-mechanism to correct its theories, laws, etc. This argument is completely off-target when dealing with my argument with God. The Christian god is an entity, with specific attributes and desires to it; science is merely the effort to discover and understand the physical world. "Again, you are making statements and claiming they are Christian doctrines, implying these doctrines are essential to your argument, you also imply you don't believe these doctrines, then you want me to argue with the Christian theologians? They are not the ones claiming God does not exist because non-believers exist. You do not provide a definition, and I am sure you are beyond understanding, of "all-loving". Just as you misunderstood "perfect science"- which I assert are one and the same. To be all loving is to be perfectly fair, balanced, and neutral. Gods laws are natural and scientific and cannot be overridden, broken, altered, or undone." Of course I do not believe God is all-loving, for the mere reason that I do not believe he exists. However, Christians commonly teach this from the scripture, and this is part of their tenet. I argue that with this characteristic, and the other attributes, God can not exist from the existence of reasonable doubters. "God is all-loving in that his laws, the laws of science and nature, are fair, balanced, neutral, and apply to all creation." -What the mama does my opponent mean? It seems he is saying that laws of science and nature...are ethical? "Fair" means free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. Science has nothing to do with justice or morality. http://dictionary.reference.com... The laws of science are analytical statements we apply to universal facts of the natural world. They are invented by humans to describe things such as gravity. I know that we didn't actually create this phenomenon, and that we actually "discovered" it. All I was pointing out is that a law of science is not perfect. "My opponent is unhappy that he was not able to manipulate this debate into the box he wanted it to fit into. The truth is that Theology does not fit into a little box called "Christianity". As a matter of fact, CHRISTIANITY doesn't fit into a little box called "Christianity"! Catholic Theology differs from Baptist, Baptist Theology differs slightly from Pentecostal, Pentecostal Theology differs from Methodist, etc. We are not arguing theology. We are not arguing the correctness of Christian texts, their truthfulness, or whether or not Christianity "teaches" the attributes of God with veracity. What we are debating is whether or not the existence of non-believers negates the existence of God." First of all, I was not attempting to refute Theology. Secondly, though there are many sects of Christianity, the attributes and characteristics I stated in the opening argument hold true to each one, unless my opponent can show otherwise. And in the case he does, I am confident to say that at least one of those sects to apply to this debate, and thus is relevant. My opponent has not addressed my opening argument at ALL. Instead, he has resorted to attacking my supposed misconstruction of "God" and "Christianity".