Return Debate on a Clichéd Topic - Arguing about God.

LCA At the beginning of the debate I pointed out that one argument would essentially be impossible to prove a God with all the aforementioned attributes (with the possible exception of Con's failed ontological argument) so debaters were not required to do so; instead they had to give arguments that contribute to proving the existence of such a being. My opponent claims that because it is almost impossible to prove that god exists in the way that my opponent described, his weak argument ought to be immune from analysis. My opponent claims that the responsibility of both parties on the pro god part of the debate have to prove it's existence. My opponent has tried and failed to do this in that he has not defended the existence of a being with the properties which he attributes to god. He defined it in the classical theistic sense of having the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence. My opponent has not proven any of these attributes exist. A comparable situation would be if I were to try to prove the existence of Superman except without the laser vision, super strength, ability to fly, X-ray vision, and moral goodness. It is easy to prove the existence of a regular tall, black haired, statuesque guy. But this does not prove the existence of Superman as he is defined. The LCA does so because it attempts to demonstrate the existence of a personal mind with an immense amount of power that created the universe. The objection is irrelevant per the terms of the debate. It demonstrates the existence of a personal and very powerful being. My opponent admits this but that is not what god is as how we have defined it in the beginning of this debate. My opponent concedes this and thus his argument may be discarded. DPOE The proposition that such suffering is necessary to produce humans is equally weak, because an omnipotent God could create humans though other means. My opponent could have easily refuted my argument against the DPOE if he had shown one way for the classical theistic god to create humans in their present form by any other means besides evolution. My opponent has not done so and thus my refutation stands. My opponent also claims that using the Bible as evidence for the existence of the classical theistic god is useless. I concede this as I have not tried to do so and will not. =========================================================== Now on to my opponent's refutations of my own arguments. Omnipotence- Omnibenevolence argument I will concede my opponent's refutation by using omnipotence as a get out of logic free card. My opponent has already defined omnipotence as such in R1. Ontological Argument My opponent writes: The problem with this argument is that is makes no distinction between entertaining an idea and holding a belief. I can conceive a being with all of God's properties and fully accept that part of the concept is existence, without actually believing that God exists. My opponent seems to misunderstand my argument. I am not arguing that one must believe god exists for it to exist, but that the very definition of god makes it's existence necessary. I have refuted both of my opponent's arguments both for and against the existence of god. I have however conceded my argument against the existence of god. My argument for the existence of god however still stands as my opponent's "refutation" merely stemmed from a misunderstanding of my argument. Therefore as my argument for the existence of god is the only one that still stands, I have upheld the resolution that, "The arguments presented by Pro are more persuasive and better argued than the arguments presented by Con ". Only the roles are reversed as Con's arguments are more persuasive than Pro's.