The existence of God.

My opponent has insisted on defining God as "the God of the bible". This is an unacceptable definition as he is using the word he is trying to define in his definition. While I admit that I allowed my opponent to be the arbiter of the definition, it's sad that he does not wish to engage in an intellectual debate. As it stands, we must cut the word 'God' from my opponents shortened definition: "the of the bible". This makes no sense, and I would urge my opponent to think of a better definition for God as he seems to avoid a dictionary.My opponent seems to advocate that what exists in reality can be unobservable. This is folly as it is unfalsifiable. In fact, my opponent is not really advocating this posiiton at all, in round 2, he gave an example in support of my premise: " not everything which may exist is immediatly observable" Immediately observable. This implies that what exists is observable, but not immediately.The God, defined by my opponent as 'the of the bible' (a nonsensical definition, I know). My opponent needs to realize that this is entirely a Red Herring fallacy. This debates primary scope is about the judeo-Christian God. As it stands, my opponent is not arguing the existence of Yahweh, he is instead arguing the existence of the formation of ink on paper. It appears my opponent seeks to argue something other than the intention of this debate. It's rather sad that my opponent would seek to waste my time like this, My opponent says I am violating my rule on vexatious semantics. I shall let the voters be the judge of this.My opponent says I am re-defining the word 'God'. This is not true, I am using a synonym. "Yahweh is the name of the God in the Bible" [1]. Further, my opponent is defining this God (Yahweh) as a string of words (the of the bible) shown in his only argument entirely immersed in semantics.My opponent has commited the appeal to authority fallacy in attempting to use a comment in aid of his case. My opponent asks me to treat him with respect yet he knows I am infuriated with his conduct. My opponent continues to say that he attemps and continues to attempt to argue 'in the most intellectually honest way' he can. This implies that my opponent is not arguing in an intellectually and honest way, he is merely trying to. I applaud my opponent in his effort, but would ask that he do instead of try.My opponent says I'm re-defining a definition. I said explicitly that I used synonyms. re-defining is not the same as synonyms.My opponent said he is arguing that 'the of the bible' is a string of letters, it is also a string of words. My opponent needs to realize that I never ever agreed on the definition that God can be defined as 'the of the bible', I merely allowed my opponent the be the arbiter of the definition in the hopes that he would exercise good judgement and conduct and provide for an intellectual debate.Alright, I am willing to provide a definition for "The God of the bible". It can be found here http://www.google.com.au...This definition is not consistent with my opponents.The scope of the debate is outlined in round 1. Specifically: "This debate will primarily be about the juedo-christian God."My opponent says I am 'not presenting it through re-definition and semantics'. My opponent needs to realize that I am using synonyms. Yahweh is clearly referred to as the god of the bible.My opponent wants me to give examples of proper arguments. I am unable to do so as their are no valid and sound arguments for the existence of God. Evidence of this can be shown by my opponents choice of argument: vexatious semantics (CLEARLY against the rules).A recap of what has happned this round:My opponent defines God as: the of the bible.My opponent has comitted the Red Herring fallacy by arguing outside the debate scope.My opponent has violated the rule of "No vexatious semantics"My opponent through dot points 2 and 3 is committing egregious misconduct.My opponent has supported the premise for my argument. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;