The Personal God Does Not Exist

I will offer some explanations, a summary of debate points, and my conclusion this round."As Pro stated that he alone wanted the BoP, then he cannot argue that I should lose conduct points for opening with refutations. My opening arguments would be refutations when the BoP is on him. Please acknowledge this when voting."The debate structure is effectively clear for Con to read. The burden of proof being on me as Pro has nothing to do with Con presenting opening arguments. Be it very well noted that Con should of read the debate structure of the debate before accepting the debate.To act as if it does not exist or dodging it may be considered by some to be unethical.The definition of what an "opening argument" is not for my opponent to define.There are dictionaries that do that.You won't find any of those definitions refering to a rebuttal.An opening argument refers to introductory statements only, not responses or rebuttals."Doctors are professionals in the medical field. They understand human biology. They understand science. They do not claim miracles because of ignorance on medical matters. They testify that miracles exist because they see things happen that go against the natural methods of human biology. This is not an argument from ignorance- it's an argument against contradiction, that is, because it is going against nature, it must be supernatural. When there are only two options, and we cut out one option, then the other must be true. If my opponent wants to refute this, he must supply another option (besides ignorance, as I have already refuted that claim)."This is an appeal to authority.Con has not demonstrated how doctors are biologically different from other human beings. If he is not saying they are biologically different then I already addressed this in point #4 of Round 2. Human beings are not rational and they define things as they fit.If human beings have the ability to define things as they see fit then what they define is only relative to the definer.So Con can not claim he refuted anything of the sort when he did not even address or refute point #4 in Round 2."If Christ was resurrected, then His words ring true, and the personal God Yahweh does exist. My opponent offered no rebuttals towards the argument for Christ's resurrection."The results Con provided don't detemine causation or the origin of a personal god.If he believes it does he must provide the proof.The conclusion of the resurrection does not affirm nor negate the existence of a personal god.This point is inconsequential. Let us sum up the points of debate I provided in Round 2:1.The Personal God came into existence long after human beings came into existence.This point has been tossed out due to fallacy.2.The Personal God has never asserted its' own existence.Con conceded this point in Round 2.3.The Personal God is an inanimate creature and not personal.This point stands as is.Con was unable to refute it.4.Human beings are not rational creatures but rationalizing creatures.This point stands as is.Con failed to address this point.5.Human beings fail to communicate with each other effectively.This point stands as is.Con failed to address this point.6.The Personal God does not intervene or no longer intervenes.This point stands as is.Con failed to address this point.7.If a god or multiple gods exist they are not personal. This point stands as is.Con failed to address this point.Conclusion:I would like to thank Con for participating in this debate.I enjoyed it.My opponent agreed that the personal god does not assert itself in Round 2.Then I addressed in Round 2 those that assert the personal god's existence; human beings.I showed that human beings are not rational creatures and define their existence as they wish.This why the personal god can not exist because it is human beings that are defining its' existence exclusively.Even my opponent defined the behavior of god or offered a definition of said behavior in Round 3.But he admitted in Round 2 that only humans beings have asserted his existence.God must be passive if he exists, Con did not offer one ounce of evidence of how god is personal.Con offered examples of messangers of god only. That only further validates my argument further.The personal god does not exist.If you came to the conclusion that the personal god does not exist after reading this debate,Vote Pro.