The existence of God.

"My opponant has failed to come up with a definition of God" "God" was already defined by my opponant when he instigated this debate, as "the God of the bible; this God has the characteristics of omnipotency, omnisciency, and so on". Since my opponant agreed to void the portion of the definition that defined god as omnipotent and omniscient, the remaining definition is, "the God of the bible", which still stands, and doesn't require me to redefine. "My opponant has not attacked any of my premises." Actually, I rebuked the premise that that which exists in reality must be observable to exist. Unless my opponant was specifically stating that it's only God that needs to be observable to exist, which would by an unproven claim on his part, my refutation stands. With this premise rebuked, my opponant's logic-based argument is no longer valid. "My opponant is relying on vexatious semantics" I object to the standard against vexatious semantics for two reasons. Firstly, it suggests that semantics are only banned if they cause vexation. Since anyone, at any time, could claim vexation from one's semantics, it completely devalues the specification. Because of this, the only method in which "vexatious semantics", could be properly outlawed, to ensure no vexation, would be to outlaw all semantics. If all semantics, defined as "the study of words and their meanings", are banned, this entire bebate, as it was instigated, is now self-contradictory, since it's based upon definitions derived from the bible, which were translated and/or defined through semantics. Now since the entire debate is based upon the existance of a being, God, as he is semantically derived from the single source of the bible, which no doubt many find vexatious, this entire debate would then be in contradiction of its own rules. Further still, and perhaps most importantly, I'd like to note that my opponant supported his argument with a link to an online dictionary, with a definition of "god". This is specifically and definitively the, "study of words [(the word "God", in this case)] and their meanings", and I find this vexatious, making my opponant also in violation of his rule. Further still, my opponant is now re-defining "God" as "Yahweh", and then using semantics based upon additional defination-based characteristics of Yahweh (which were not present in the initial agreed-upon definition of "god") to attack my arguments. "Also, it's not my definition of reality" I made no objection to the definition of reality provided by my opponant. In fact, I complimented him on its clarity, but I appreciate him citing his sources nonetheless. "While this is infuriating" I'd like to draw my opponant's attention to a comment that was made on this debate before I accepted it, by another member of this community, which stated that the instigator had set up a "straw man". I agree with this assessment of my opponant's debate instigation, and could very well find such a dishonourable instigation infuriating. Instead, I've kept my emotions in check, and have done my best to argue a position that is not my own (I'm also a non-believer) through the only method that I believe could justify the position I'm arguing for (the existance of god). I would request that my opponant treat his opposing Pro with respect, since I have attempted, and continue to attempt, to argue a position that is not my own in the most intellectually honest way that I can (instead of just presenting Kalam or something, and waiting for my opponant to knock it down, which was what my opponant was apparently, and if so dishonourably, expecting). "This god is synonymous with..... the Hebrew Bible" My opponant is attempting to re-define a definition that was established at the beginning of the debate. If readers of this debate would please noticce, this is very poor conduct on the part of my opponant. "My opponant is arguing that 'Yahweh' is a string of words" I am doing no such thing. I am arguing that "God" is a string of letters, which demonstrably and objectively exist in the physical and "real" world as structures of ink and paper. The definition of "God" that was agreed upon at the start of this debate was, "the God of the bible". Since the word, "god", can be found in the bible (bible wasn't defined by the instigator, so it could be any bible, such as an English one, which would title the deity as, "god", rather than "Yahweh"), "God" which is "of the bible", exists. "I would ask that my opponant please substantiate this definition with a proper source" This definition ("the God of the bible") was presented by the instigator, and edited with the removal of "omnipotency" and "omnisciency" with the consent of instigator. If my opponant requests a source for this definition, I'd ask that he, himself, provide it. "My opponant has ventured outside of the primary scope of this debate" I request that my opponant explain what the primary scope of this debate is, then, and where, exactly, in his opening he clarified this exact scope which I have ventured outside of. "My opponant defines Yahweh (synonymous with: god of the bible), as a string of words without sources." Firstly, my opponant is clearly using semantics here, which is in direct violation of his own rules. "Yahweh" was not present in the opening of this debate, yet my opponant is now presenting it through re-definition and SEMANTICS. Secondly, I ask my opponant to quote exactly where I said that "Yahweh" was a string of words (plural). "My opponant has failed to rebute any of my premises" I wish to note that I have, in fact, rebuted my opponants premise that existing things are necessarily observable. Or, if my opponant was specifically claiming that only God had to be observable to exist, that my opponant was making an unsupported claim. Thirdly, actually, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the god I have demonstrated to exist is in fact observable (the structure of ink and paper in that particular form is both observable and easily recognisable), making this aspect of my opponant's entire argument pointless anyway. "I would urge my opponant to please abandone his semantics...... debate with proper arguments" I would urge my opponant to please give examples of "proper arguments" for the existance of god that I may emulate for him, bearing in mind that Kalam, TAG, the Ontological argument, and the Ray Comfort arguments are all already widely refuted. Sources: (a picture of a bible, showing the observable existance of various physical words within it) http://www.bing.com... god