is God real

Pro lists a handful of websites that purportedly give evidence that God exists. My opponent will have to do more than just provide links. He must provide arguments with those links. In a debate with a strict character limit and time frame I cannot reasonably be expected to "take the time to read over all of these websites." Would my opponent be convinced if I linked several websites that "provide evidence" that God does not exist and that Jesus is not historical? Or would he expect me to articulate and qualify the arguments further? I would hope the latter. The idea of Jesus as a historical figure does not prove divinity in anyway. I am willing to concede that a man named Jesus lived, though this does little to help pro. I did not say that God faces an existential crisis. My opponent did. He said "God has a purpose for keeping evil around in this world. Lets say that there is no evil in this world. Would we really think that we need God?.... God has evil in this world to test our faith to see if we will believe in him no matter what. God wants us to rely on him everyday for everything we need, not ourselves." Basically in response to the problem of evil, pro thinks that an omniscient omnipotent and morally perfect being would be justified in allowing evil insomuch as it causes people to suffer in order to need God. That is from top to bottom the most abusive relationship that I have ever heard of. Thank goodness it is not true. When I point this out pro claims "It is simple, the chief end of God is to bring glory to himself and enjoy himself forever. I don't have the full answer to this question, only God does. But this is the best answer I can give." It seems to me that this is another concession of sorts. My opponent does not have a good answer for the problem of evil. After re-reading my portions of this debate I feel as though I have addressed my opponents concern about "probability" to the point of ad-nauseam. I will do so one last time. Pro thinks it unlikely we would be here without some kind of God. It seems to me that observing the universe demonstrates it is indeed unlikely for us to be here. 99.9999% of the universe is inhospitable to life. If there was some kind of perfect designer this would very likely not be the case. My opponent contests the percentage I give saying "there is no possible way that this can be proved." It is odd on its face to think that life would be common in the universe given that we have never observed any outside our little suburb in the cosmos. Regardless, this can be proved and has been thoroughly documented. This first link is to NASA and articulates different types of radiation and how we can measure its presence in space. (1) Aside from this reality, pros argument still hinges on the assumption that complexity implies a designer. This makes the argument self defeating as it would apply to God. My opponent commits a special pleading fallacy that God is not in need of this because he has always existed. My opponent again states that the universe is running out of energy and thus could not have always existed. He ignored my contention on this and I will extend it. If all energy was "created" at the beginning of the universe, did God exist without energy? If so, why cant the universe?SummaryMy opponent continues to ignore my contentions. He has not addressed that his intelligent design argument is fallacious. He has not responded sufficiently to the problem of evil other than to present the idea that a morally perfect being is an abusive prick. He admitted early that there is no evidence that God is real. His words were "God was not created. He has always existed. We don't have evidence that he exists..." Clearly my opponent has not offered evidence in favor of his position. Vote Con. I apologize for spelling, grammer, typos etc... I have been typing this on a tablet. (1) https://spaceflight.nasa.gov...