There is mathematical Proof of the Existence of God

"You still refuse to read the proof which enables the creation of the "3D model", thus your statement is simply opinion."I have drawn that conclusion based on the evidence that you have given me in this debate."I have provided you with the page numbers, the link to the sources, and the resulting data that was created by it."When you cite something, you still have to provide the evidence (1). I am currently informed with whatever information you have given to me in the debate, and at this point, it seems as though you have created a cube of random numbers, invented a code from the Gnostic gospels, put it into a few select Bible verses, and asserted that you have mathematically proven that God exists.Let's say you're right. There's a new Jerusalem, and it did exactly what Revelations 21 described. This would not confirm all of Jesus's testimony, but merely Revelations 21. It would, however, be fairly strong evidence that would convince a lot of people, but it would still fall short of being a "mathematical proof"."Because people do not read the Bible nor the Gnostic Scriptures for themselves, and rely upon a preacher or pastor to tell them what is in the documents, and rely on someone else to interpret the scriptures for them (as my opponent wished me to do for him) misinformation regarding the true message within the scriptures abounds."Personally, I have read the entire Bible, and I know many people, Christian or otherwise that have. I find it to be boring read, although some of the stories are interesting. I did not wish you to interpret that Bible "for me", but rather, I wished to hear your own interpretation of it, as there are very many different interpretations that exist of the same exact book. Perhaps this indicates an inability to write clearly and undeniably."My opponent has not refuted my initial claims, he refused to read the evidence, which results in his disbelief."I have read and refuted all evidence that you have provided in this debate. Unfortunately, there has been a dire drought of any sort of evidence that backs up your original claim in this debate."The complexity of the information and the knowledge required to provide the evidence, is not suited for a debate here."Then why are you debating it here?Even if there was abstract mathematical proof that a deity exists, it wouldn't be able to prove the Christian god. It would probably be one of the thousands of other gods. If there truly is mathematical proof that a god exists, you would have simply dropped the Bible nonsense and provided the actual mathematical proof that your secret code unlocked. Unfortunately, you appear to be deluding yourself with false hopes of evidence of an unfalsifiable supreme overlord."My opponent wished me to minimize the proof, which would have resulted in inaccurate information and understanding; and invalidate my claims."No, I wished you to provide at your proof, but you refused on the grounds of you needed 300 pages to provide any proof. Why would you get on here and debate this, if you are incapable of providing a still-viable shortened version of any type of evidence? It simply does not make sense, and I would encourage you to be ready to provide proof/evidence (in the debate) before going into any future debates.In short, Pro has simply given links to a 300+ page book, and told me to read it before debating him, despite the standard of debates being that one must actually provide evidence in the debate itself. He has refused to provide any sort of actual evidence in the debate, stating things along the lines of "you need to read the book first". Unfortunately, that is not the way debates work.In the meantime, I wish you the best, and would encourage you to work on your debating skills. Your "proof" may appeal more to people who already believe in God, because people who already believe he exists and seek affirmation of that will find evidence where there is none to be found.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...