Atheism or Theism

I did read my opponent's arguments and successfully refuted them. I am angered that he chose to introduce arguments that do not belong in our debate.He opened his argument with, "For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concerns general revelation, and hence forms of religion are irrelevant. We are debating a judeo-Christian type God."When I accepted this debate, I stated, "I do see some problems possibly stemming from the defined god. I would prefer one more clearly defined as to its specific attributes & actions. For my purposes, I am planning on god based on a creator god possessing omnipotence and omniscience but not the one whose actions are necessarily described by the Christian Bible."Nowhere in our opening discussions was anything said about a benevolent deity by either of us. In fact, there are many references in the Quran, the Bible, etc... that such monotheistic deities are anything but benevolent. In round 2, I predicted that my opponent would attempt to bring in the "Problem of Evil". In round 3, we see him ask, "that you extend this argument... Because God wants us to 'love him maximally'." He is merely building a strawman fallacy-based argument. Therefore, any and all of his arguments that hinge on a all-benevolent god are outside the realm of our debate and should just be ejected from the discussion. My opponent charges that I did not respond to his arguments. This is untrue. His first argument states that I need to provide extraordinary evidence and that without extraordinary evidence, a claim can be considered false. I responded that absence of evidence does not equal absence of existence and gave the example of microscopic bacteria. His argument was refuted and my opponent agreed as such in the next round, "My partner is correct--absence of evidence=/=absence of existence.", but added with a reference to the strawman of a loving god. I view his argument as successfully refuted as per "loving" was not part of the initially agreed upon Godlike qualities.I pointed out the problems with his demographic argument, namely, we do not know if any of those belief systems are true and that my opponent stated that God would be incomprehensible and therefore we cannot predict what a created universe would be like. My opponent conceded that point, "I must concede that we cannot", but otherwise blatantly ignored my response and again used his "loving-God" strawman via Dr Drange's argument. So, when my opponent asked readers to remember that he showed demographics are better explained by atheism... he is committing a falsehood! (This is just one of the falsehoods he has so far committed. (1 saying I did not respond his arguments, which I have easily shown to be false, he conceded my refutations several times. 2 stating that his demographic argument was true which was false. 3 that Burden of Proof falls on the theist at all times to prove that God exists. This is false. It depends on the issue being debated. For example, a debate regarding how strong Samson via an estimation of pounds lifted does not require the proponent to prove Samson actually existed).)My opponent's argument regarding demographics is a strange one. It is meaningless unless he proves that a God is true. I maintained that all of those religions could possibly be false and that seeing (as my opponent maintained) that God is incomprehensible to us, we cannot predict what a universe created by such would resemble. It could easily resemble a naturally occurring universe. My opponent responded, "I must concede that we cannot--however, we must consider the evidence given to us by this "perfect-wise-Creator" (Please note that my pro-atheist opponent just acknowledged that God provided evidence for his existence).Now, as to my argument. My opponent has not stipulated any means to calculate the odds for God's existence. He is maintaining a mathematical statement without wanting to show his work. I supplied a cited source which stipulated the odds being 67%. My opponent argued against this number, while so far been incapable of providing his own. Please note, even while I was pointing out the 67% number, I stipulated that I thought the odds were 50%. God may/may not exist. A 50% finding means my position was vindicated. Right now, that is the only figure on the table.I argued that our perceived reality might not be the true reality and that assigning probability to such things as a creator is an exercise in futility. My opponent has not responded to this.In sum, I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments and received concessions from him regarding this. His statement that I have not responded to them is a blatant falsehood. My opponent has been and continues to attempt to build a strawman argument regarding an all-benevolent deity. This is outside the scope of our debate and I am disregarding any of those arguments other than calling his use of them.I maintain there is a 50% chance of God existing. I did provide a source stating 67%, but regard 50% as more solid. My opponent has done nothing to try and describe any mathematical reasoning for a lower probability number. I ask readers of this debate to please do not fall prey to his use of fancy flowcharts and convoluted reasoning. Look at the arguments and refutations, look at the use of falsehoods and fallacies used during the debate.