Religion, Opponent chooses topic and states their side. Atheists or Christians welcome.

Well this debate was clearly not a debate at all! My opponent has failed to even read the title of the debate. (this explains why I had NO idea what you where talking about) I DID NOT define any of those arguments you had the intent of proving wrong (and no you still didn't). The title of the debate was: "Religion, Opponent chooses topic and states their side. Atheists or Christians welcome. " You (my opponent) DID NOT pick the topic as was the main idea. Instead you used my clearly stated example* (of what my opponent was expected to do during the first round) as the topic. In fact my first sentence was: "First round is to state topic (religion based), what side you are on, and make your first arguments. " * My example: "example of the first round as people apparently think this is too confusing: (topic) There is no proof for god. (By an atheist opponent) (arguments) - Most people believe in a man made religion, - God has never shown himself -No physical evidence -Etc It would be my job to argue these points. "My opponent still did not prove his points. My opponent did not prove the points:Why are the laws of nature obviously the handwriting of god? You keep saying that its "My definition of god" or "Since I believe God created the Cosmos and everything in it" and most recently "My connection with God is morality" . Your "beliefs" are meaningless to me. You could believe that you have a pet dragon. Without proof I do not believe that you have a pet dragon. I do not have any reason to believe in your god. The simple fact that morality is your connection with god isn't an argument to any of my examples "I" outlined:You did the work of recapping "my arguments" from the example:"Most people believe in a man-made religion, “God has never shown himself,No physical evidence,etc"To that you essentially said "well how do you know" and skipped right to "etc". A debater should know that an argument cannot be taken seriously if there are three topics and "etc". This should have made it clear that what you read was an example and not the actual debate. I am sure I still made it clear in my arguments that people having morals isn't divine in any way no mater how many scientific links you throw in the middle of it. "my definition of God is the event before the Big Bang". .. "This is proper for the debate, because Con did not define the term(s) of God. "First off, Your definition of god is not proper for this debate as I did define the terms for god as implied. It was said that either a Christian or an atheist would take up this debate as said in my title, therefore it would be No god or the Christian god I would be dealing with. Not made up big bang god. As for your definition of god, unfortunately that isn't what the event before the big bang is called nor is it what the definition of god is. There are many theories on what happened before the big bang. None of them include the universe is god. In fact its possible that nothing came before the big bang and nothing caused it. In that sense your god is nothing. . http://www.independent.co.uk...Definition of god: God ɡäd/noun noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. Its up to the voters now. Hopefully they will see that the first round, the few rules or even the title where not read or followed. (In a world where they where followed I believe I still refuted your points. ) Ta Ta for now!