God Is Fake

There isn't much to refute here because Pro has attempted to change the goalposts of this debate and, in the process, dropped every one of my arguments.Pro begins his argument with an ad hominem that I am suffering from a mental illness simply by pointing out that he is attempting to change the goalposts in this debate. This debate is not on whether there is evidence for a God, but whether he can disprove the existence of one. Again, he has dropped my arguments as to agnosticism versus gnosticism, and has failed to meet his burden of proof. Then, he goes on to commit a bare-assertion fallacy by asserting that this is simply a matter of "hiding behind a debate platform," insinuating that I am a theist or that I have concluded comprehensively that there is a God, and this is simply a feel-good moment for me. None of this is true, however. And he keeps insinuating that my role is to prove that God is real or that I asserted as much. Again, he is attempting to move the goalposts of this debate. He effectively conceded the debate, again, by saying that "there's no way to prove that the laws of nature won't change in the next second for example." This is completely true, and because of this, he cannot prove that God is "fake."His dichotomy between theoretical and practical is outside the parameters of this debate. The resolution did not specify in which world -- even if I were accept the dichotomy -- God is fake. So what he is doing in this instance is working backwards from his conclusion is making a number of bare-assertion fallacies. First, the theoretical world as he describes does not hold that God is real -- only that he could be real, and many people have advanced arguments to this end -- e.g., Kalan Cosmological Argument, Prime Mover argument, etc. This is a world in the abstract. Because it is abstract, there is no evidence for God in this world in much the same way that there isn't in the practical world.But the real problem with Pro's argument is his framing of the practical world. I accept scientific deduction and logic as the basis for discerning reality. But his assertion as to how I reason that God could exist is misleading. Here's a modus tollens syllogism summarizing my argument:A: If something is not disproved or cannot be disproved, it is in principle possible.B: God has not been disproved and cannot be disproved.C: God is possible.He admits that we aren't sure whether we can understand nature -- which, by the way, is an argument in support of my case, because if we can't understand nature, then we surely don't understand its limits, how it can to be, etc. His argument develops into an attack on theists, which is not only a complete strawman of my argument, but is not within the parameters of our debate. He asserts that the only way to prove something is through induction -- thorugh reasoning from the particular to the general. This doesn't hold in all scenarios, however, and he provides no evidence whatsoever (1) that deductive reasoning could form a basis for ascertaining truth -- e.g., I observe X in nature and thus I deduce that X exists in this world (2) that, even if his assertion were true, that it proves his case. He claims that the only things that are true in the practical world are things substantiated by evidence. I agree. But he goes on to commit a non sequitur falalcy by saying that "anthing that doesn't have supporting evidence is fake." He has dropped my argument that the question of God has any truth value whatsoever. The problem with his argument is that the fact that there isn't evidence for God does not disprove God, and he has admitted several times that it is a possibility. His use of the word fake, which is the crux of this debate, is fallacious and flat-out deceptive. We don't call something unsubstantiated fake; we call something that we have proven to be fake, fake. His appeal to neurosis and attempt to bash theists is, again, outside the scope of this debate.