The Christian/Jewish God (Yahweh) most likely exists outside of peoples imagination.

Allow me to begin this round by stating that I, indeed, claimed Yahweh is a present aspect of objective reality. In light of this, I understand I must present claims that attempts to persuade you, my audience, that my thesis has merit. Likewise, my opponent posited that Yahweh is non-existent in reality, and only existent in the beliefs of people. My opponent then finished the first round by giving a definition to "imagination"; this word did not appear in his thesis at all, only as a definition and as an afterthought. I assume imagination refers to the "beliefs" held by Christians and Jews alike. My opponent stated in the comments that a "Con" position does not have burden of proof (for example, God does not exist), but really he is saying God exists only in human belief exclusively. This is no longer a "Con" position as he explains it, but a positive position necessitating a burden of proof also. In such as case, if my opponent does not feel as if it is necessary to provide evidences for Yahweh's nonexistence (as stated in the comments section), then I expect for the "Con" position to give good reasons why human conscience created Yahweh instead of Yahweh creating human conscience. At any rate, it is neither up to me or my opponent to decide whether he needs to present initial defenses for his position. This is up to you, the voters, and I hope you will agree with me in this particular matter. Now, onto my arguments. In the interest of brevity, and the fact I have limited time, I will defend a commonly expressed argument for an objective God's existence, namely objective moral values. This argument breaks down into three parts: 1) If a supreme being does not objectively exist, then objective moral values do not exist. 2) Objective moral values DO exist 3) Therefore a supreme being DOES exist. Most theists and atheists alike accept the first premise. In reference to the second premise, there again are few who would argue that there are no objective moral values. Many of those who think the human conscience and feelings evolved as a product of society are not willing to concede that there is objectively a moral difference between loving a baby and harming a baby. Take the common atheist question, 'If God exists, why is there so much pain in the world and why do bad things happen to good people.' This argument uses objective moral values to question God's goodness, but by its own concession of objective moral values, it's really validating Gods existence, just griping with God's decisions. I don't want to devote as much detail to this as I could because of my current tendency to already ramble. I can address any shortcomings you may raise in a rebuttal. Secondly, I encourage all readers to examine the accuracy of Biblical prophecy as a testimony to Yahweh being the supreme being. Contrary to many unsound Christians, and some teachings, the bible (and Torah) does not prompt Christians to take faith blindly. Believing comes from one of two sources. In a straightforward way, the first is through experience of the five senses. For example, seeing is believing. Though some philosophers could argue that, I am actually representing a second avenue of belief. As Christians we are to believe through examining others testimonies. This is profound because it means we do not check our brains at the door, but are proactive in examining the Biblical record to see whether it's testimonies about God are verifiable. I think there are many aspects about the Bible that make it unique and testify to its truth, but I shall only choose one here, and that is fulfilled prophecy. Biblical prophets, (i.e. Jesus, Moses, Daniel, etc.) gave both short term prophecies and long term prophecies often in conjunction with one another. This verified to the audience that, at the completion of the short term prophecies, that the long term prophecies could be trusted. Jesus gives prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple saying not one stone would be left atop another. In 70 AD, Romans under Titus Vesputian burned the the temple causing the gold to melt and run between the bricks, which were pried apart by legionnaires. This is important because even the most liberal scholarship dates Mark to right at 70 AD with most scholars believing this prophecy was penned before 70 AD. Likewise Daniel gives specific prophecies concerning the fall of the Babylonians, the rise and fall of the medo-Persians, the rise and fall of the Greeks and the rise and fall of the Romans. Liberal scholars again move the date of authorship from around the 500s BC to closer to 200 BC, though they have no good reason to do so. Why is this done? Because Daniel's prophecies are so detailed and so accurate, they believe it cannot be true prophecy. What often escapes them is that Daniel gives other prophecies concerning the Maccabean age, which comes after 200 BC, and the accounts that Alexander was read a portion of Daniel and marveled at it, and finally that Jewish tradition regarded Daniel as a prophet and not as a historian. Daniel also predicted the exact time frame Messiah would come, coinciding with the life of Jesus. With liberal estimates, that's still 160 years in the least before the life of Jesus. Lay all that aside, there is also something special to Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Exodus 12, and Genesis 22 in how they foretell with detail the death of Christ thousands of years beforehand, though crucifixion was not yet a historical practice. With just an introduction to just a FEW of the meaningful prophecies of the Bible, I think it's clear that it is beckoning readers to examine its prophecies and whether they are historically fulfilled. I think there's good reason to believe they have been and that they testify to the omniscience of Yahweh. As I will try to demonstrate in my next round, we have good reason to believe a historical figure named Jesus, died by crucifixion, and became resurrected from the dead. I think this fact is inescapable, and if so, the prophecies which I mentioned, testify to this, thus giving credence to Yahweh, as does the divine power of the resurrection itself. I wish I could've devoted more time and detail to this, but I am hard pressed with my schedule and family to give as much time as I'd like. I hope this will suffice, and I will give two better reasons next round in a similar format. Thank you for reading, 4SCOREand7