I will go to hell if I murdered 12 people

"Does it really matter where Hell might be?" no, but your definition clearly put it withing the earth, which it is not necessarily. "You have to prove that souls physically exist" i don't have to proof anything, you made the positive claim "hell is not real" i did not make the positive claim 'hell is real' i merely rejected your claim that it is. Also even if i did make the positive claim i would just need to prove their existence, not the physical nature of it. "Souls do not exist of matter, so they do not physically exist" why do you need a qualifier before exist? if something exists it is real whether or not it exists physically, conceptual, or through an unknown mechanism. So whether or not they are matter is irrelevant you still have to prove they do not exist in any form. pro:"we have not yet penetrated the earth's crust, the outer most layer, so we cannot say, with absolute certanty, that it does not exist within the earth, therefore you have yet to meet your burden of proof." con: "If nobody has penetrated Earth's crust, then that means nobody knows where hell is. Then, how would we know if it exists if nobody knows where it is? Surely if someone saw Hell, then we would know where it is." I never said hell exists, i am rejecting your claim that it does not. In order to prove that it does not exist on earth you would have to looked everywhere, because we obviusly have not you cannot claim with absolute certainty that hell does not exist within earth. pro:"I also object to your definition of real. How about simply existing." con:" those two terms are not interchangeable. The statement was, 'I will not go to hell when I die because hell is not real.' I agree that hell exists, but it is not real. You got a better definition of real?" i think what you meant to say was that you agree that a concept of hell exists. With the understanding that a concept of a thing and that thing are not the same, do you still reject real=existing, if so explain why. pro: "something does not need to be a physical entity to be real. for example logical absolutes are real, the laws of physics are real, the number 2 is real." con:"So? Your point? Find me a definition that says Hell is real. " i will take this to mean you agree that something does not nead to be physical in order to be real. I bring this up because you keep using qualifiers like physically for example: "Hell doesn't physically exist" "existing as a physical entity" "prove that souls physically exist" "Hell doesn't physically exist anyway." "I do not have a physical soul" "Hell does not physically exist" given that you agreed these that being physical is irrelevant, could you stop using these qualifiers (and to the gallery, try re-reading the debate ignoring the qualifiers). the first place we need to remove this qualifier is in the much disputed defintion of real, taking it from- "Real - existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard" to -"Real - existing as a entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard" pro: "I don't understand what you meant in the last part of your definition [of real] ' having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard'" con "It doesn't matter since Hell is not a physical entity." again with the qualifier, but since you agree the second part of your definition is irrelevant lets get rid of the second part leaving us with "Real - existing as a entity" the 'as an entity part' seams extraneous, anything that exists is by definition an entity, but i agree that hell is an entity, so i won't fight over this. "When you die, you die. You don't go to Heaven, you don't go to Hell. Your brain is dead, all your thoughts and memories are gone." your soul is separate from your brain. "Thus, I will not go to hell if I murder people, because Hell does not physically exist." again, why the qualifier. do you agree that hell exists non-physical? Con is the one making the claim that hell does not exist therefore it is his burden to prove this the same way it would be mine if i was making the claim that it did.