You are God, and I do not exist.

It seems that you have taken an angry and defensive turn on me. And for that I apologize, it was not my intention to insult you. Allow me to clarify, by saying I would "humor" your side I wasn't trying to mock you or discredit your stance, rather I was just covering my tracks so that readers would not take my "suppose you are right" statements as my submission to you. It disappoints me that you have moved on to personal attacks, such as saying that the logic I "blabber out" is annoying, calling my stance in this debate "ridiculous", mocking me by calling my argument a "little game", and calling me a hypocrite in starting this debate because a hypocrite wouldn't care to follow it through. For the record, I am not a skeptic. I am a Christian and I believe in God, Jesus Christ, Satan, Heaven, Hell, the whole bit. But I also enjoy logical, rhetorical, and philosophical questions. I am fascinated by the complexity and capabilities of the human mind, and therefore also fascinated by questions that are beyond human comprehension. I also make a conscious effort to be open minded to other ideas. I have seen too many people pursue a faith blindly, without any knowledge or consideration of the alternatives. My purpose of this debate was not to prove that Skepticism, as you call it, is TRUE, rather to prove that it is POSSIBLE and cannot be disproven. That is why in my opening argument I asked voters to vote based on THAT aspect of the debate rather than their personal beliefs. Because if I were to vote on this topic based on my beliefs of truth, I would vote against it. But, per my request in my opening argument, I would vote, despite my beliefs, that it is POSSIBLE. This is why in my second argument, I wasn't trying to force your submission to me, I was simply pointing at that you were agreeing with the very thing I asked someone to dispute, that "there is no successful way to totally refute skepticism." I had never intended to insult your argument. You obviously have sufficient knowledge of philosophy and religion. Your points were great reasons for someone to believe that skepticism is not true, but I will still hold that they are not reasons for someone to believe that it is not possible. With all that said, I will continue with my final argument: You continue to say that skepticism results in a purposeless existence. However, I again make the comparison between the idea of being your own god, or believing in an external God. What is God's purpose? Either way you look at it, can you define a purpose for God? If you are saying that a being that creates and controls its own world and has ultimate knowledge is purposeless, wouldn't that mean that an external God has no purpose either? Also you continue to say that you can't be your own God because then you should be able to control time, space, events, and conjure up anything you desire at your whim. Still, you are assuming that you have knowledge of the nature of your being and assuming that's how it SHOULD be. You are basing that assumption on the common conception of an external God, and assuming that they should be the same. Why is it not possible that the nature of your being is different. It is as it is whether or not you know why. Maybe your quest to find proof of an external God is your mind's subconscious way of searching for an answer of its own existence. As for your unusual, yet humorous Alba-panties argument, you again assume that your mind has a conscious choice and control over the world it creates. (Sorry if I continue to go through each of your points and supply a counter-argument, but isn't that the purpose of a debate?) Now with the Big Bang example, yes I agree it has its issues because by your comprehension something HAD to initiate it. What about an external God? When and how was He initiated? And if He is not limited by time - is and always was - then why can't this too be the nature of a 'self'-God that creates its own reality(ies). And I still think it's possible for you to be your own mini-God, not a separate being created by your brain. It must just not be the nature of your being to allow for limitless ability manipulate your reality. As for THIS reality you have created, it must have been the desire of your mind to create a realistic world. Because without placing limits on itself, its world would become utter chaos. Therefore, you yourself would still be a 'thinking thing.' There is my final argument. Maybe your real argument with this debate is that you believe it is a waste of time and find me ignorant for posting it, because the POSSIBILITY of it is so obviously impossible to disprove.