The Fact that there are Atheists is Contradictory to the concept of God.

Let us examine the original position as layed out by my opponent. It is important to remain focused on the original intent of his position as the debate progresses, because I believe we are entering ground which my opponent negated in his original statement. Remember: "Make it clear that I am NOT saying that Atheist's have the evidence and proof that God doesn't exist, and that everyone else is just disillusioned or biased. What I am saying is the mere fact that there even is a debate (in this case between Christians and Atheists) is contradictory to the concept of Jesus Christ/God." My opponents arguments in round three appear to be an attempt to do exactly what he specifically negates with his opening statement. I submit the reason for this, is that his position of debate negating the existence of the Christian flavor of God is too weak to stand on its own. Summary of pro's third round clearly indicates this point. 1. Protestantism and Catholicism adopt doctrines of Hell 2. Christians believe faith is required for salvation 3. Faith is unreliable, due to the existence of other religions 4. Fallen Angels prove that freewill can be maintained with God's direct revelation of his existence. 5. God isn't doing a good enough job of revealing himself, because Atheist don't believe he exists, based in a lack of evidence. 6. Debate is contrary to the vary concept of God. 7. Atheists aren't rebelling, simply disbelieving. 8. God has prescribed notions, negated by debate about his existence. I submit that my opponent has failed to provide any proof that debate about the existence of God, is contrary to that existence. While he is accurate in stating that God has prescribed attributes of Omniscience, Benevolence and Omnipresence, he makes the assumption that those attributes would negate debate about his very existence. It is clear that humans have the ability to debate any subject, as proof, I submit Debate.org. It is also clear that humans debate the existence of things that have prescribed attributes, irregardless of the reality of their existence. As an example, I submit, every single Scientific hypothesis proposed by mankind in history. Take for instance, the Big Bang. Scientists like Hoyle have debated the existence of the big bang, and all its prescribed attributes since it was proposed by Hubble. The BB seems to be supported by observable evidence, but is still debated, by Robert Gentry and several other physicists. That debate, neither negates or promotes the existence of BB, it simply expresses human belief regarding it. The only thing that can conclusively prove or disprove existence is measurable data and empirical evidence. The fact that humans debate things will never serve to prove anything other than the fact that humans love to debate and learn and question all things. I submit that debate about the existence of God, doesn't negate his proposed attributes of omniscient, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence whatso ever. It does open debate about accepted Christian doctrines of Hell and Salvation, but DOESN'T negate or support the proposed existence of God, which was the original position. I would like to thank both my opponent and the reader for thinking about this debate and ask each to think about all the beliefs that we debate about and whether that debate, in and of itself, supports or negates reality. Thank you.