God's wrath appears in response to defiance against Him.

As I said in my opening piece, and as Pro has not disputed, he must be able to prove God in order to prove that God's wrath will come upon atheists and agnostics. If God doesn't exist or possibly does not exist, his wrath also doesn't exist or possibly does not exist. If that is the case, the resolution is negated. Therefore, PRO must be able to conclusively prove God's existence. Thus far, all of his arguments hinge on the existence of God: if God doesn't exist or possibly doesn't exist, they fail, and he hasn't met his burden of proof. At this point, I am going to rebut each of his arguments and then provide my own contentions negating this resolution. PRO states, "The proof is your own death."My mortality in no way proves the existence of God. We don't know what happens after we die. The fact that I am mortal and will one day die is not proof of God, but only of the fact that I will die, as will everyone. reading this. PRO states, "If you won't believe God's wrath is in response to your evil, your eternal death is sure and you will never know anything other than God's wrath......even though you deny it now."I find it interesting that PRO states that not believing in God will lead to my "eternal death," which implies that he believes that I will simply cease to exist after I die, but he then goes on to say that I will be eternally tormented in the "Lake of Fire." Pro's remarks are inconsistent. If he states that I will perish and will experience an "eternal death," how exactly will I be tormented? Using his own logic refutes this resolution. Of course, using my standard negation argument, this argument by PRO hinges on God's existence, which of course he can't prove, so the contention fails, anyway.PRO states, "God loves you."This is of course irrelevant to the resolution, though I must point out that it actually acts as a contradiction, if anything, on PRO's part. If we assume that God exists, how could he both love me and impose his wrath on me for daring to question his existence? That is, for using the inherent capacity he supposedly gave me to think and to reason and to question, I am either going to perish eternally, or be tormented forever, according to PRO. Does he not see that his remarks indicate a significant contradiction?PRO states, "I hope you find this to be more than intersting."This is indeed interesting. Thank you, PRO.PRO states, "Your defiance against God is evil and will incurr nothing but God's wrath proven in your death and ultimately in eternal torment of the Lake of Fire if you finalize your death insistant that God's wrath cannot be proven."I have already pointed out the contradiction in what PRO has written regarding what he thinks will happen to me upon my death, but regardless of that, his remarks hinge on the existence of God. But, in addition, he assumes the existence of a personal God who desires to be worshipped and punishes people who dare to question him when there is in fact no evidence for his existence, but at the same time, supposedly loves us. How does this make any sense? Again, I would love to see PRO's evidence. PRO states, "Casting doubt on the existance of God will only cause His wrath to build against you more."This is a baseless statement that, as far as we know, is not grounded in evidence, but merely PRO's opinion, so naturally we can discard it.PRO states, "Go ahead and cast doubt. Go ahead and say God cannot be angry with you because He is not there."It's interesting that PRO is saying this when he believes that, in doubting the existence of God, I'm dooming myself either to eternal death or to torture. But, yes, I will cast doubt because there is no evidence. By the way, I have never said "He is not there." Some atheists may, but I have not. I merely would like to see some evidence as to whether or not he is there. I'm "agnostic," if you will. PRO's burden, obviously, is to prove that God exists. PRO states, "Go ahead and see where it gets you."My response to this, I suppose, is identical to my response to his previous remark. PRO states, "God's wrath is on you now, and you are pretending not to notice and not to care."This remark by PRO is not only baseless, but insulting. He is suggesting that I am "pretending" not to notice that God's wrath is supposedly upon me. This isn't the case. I don't happen to know whether God's wrath is upon me because I don't know whether God exists. Listen to his logic, though: he is essentially suggesting that atheists and agnostics do not exist. If I am pretending not to notice God's wrath, by PRO's estimation, then I would have to believe in God. If that is the case and we accepted this notion as universal, there would be no such thing as an atheist or agnostic. I challenge PRO to defend this supposition.PRO states, "God won't excuse you for pretending,"He again asserts that I am pretending. How can this be so? And if it were so, wouldn't it be true that the sin he is speaking of is "pretending," rather than disbelieving? PRO states, "He won't accept your argument saying He cannot be proven as your excuse that you should not feel His wrath."Again, PRO is merely prozelytizing rather than arguing. He needs to prove his remarks, rather than merely stating them. This, again, is an assertion on his part, one of which I would love for him to prove or try to prove.PRO states, "You are defying God and He will make sure you know He does not appreciate it."This is another baseless assertion by PRO, but also another contradiction. If I perish eternally, in his judgment, then I won't know that "he does not appreciate it." How does this make any sense given what PRO has already said?At this point, the resolution has already been negated, but I have some remaining character space, so I am going to run a few more contentions. C1) Problem of Evil Effectively Refutes the Christian God, which negates the resolution For this following syllogism, I would like to credit Envisage, who worded it quite eloquently (1): "P1) If the Christian God exists, then gratuitous suffering will not exist.P2) Gratuitous suffering exists.C1) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist."The Christian God to which PRO is referring, or the 03 God, is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. This means that, in the Christian view, he is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. In other words, this would mean that he knows of what is happening and what will happen, has a desire to end suffering, and is powerful enough to end it. If this is the case, why do people suffer? How can he be all-powerful if he does not end it, or all-good if he allows it to continue, provided that he knows it is occuring?C2) Occam's Razor and the Origins of the Universe Call into Question the Necessity of a GodOccam's Razor boils down to this: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better" (2). In reference to this, Stephen Hawking wrote the following in A Brief History of Time (2)(3): "We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."This leads us to the conclusion that, if we have another, more plausible explanation with fewer assumptions than the theological case for God, the explanation with fewer assumptions is usually accurate. In this case, this would be self-creation.I am out of characters, so I will pass back to PRO. As it is, the resolution is negated. (1) http://www.debate.org...;-- Syllogism taken from Envisage's Round 1 opening argument (2) http://math.ucr.edu...; (3) Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, page 57