God exists.

"Influence is both a property with a qualitative and quantitative aspects, and true you merely decided to point out it must have influence you leave me the initiative to determine what is and what is not enough influence." It seems you are saying that after reaching a certain threshold of influence, an object suddenly comes into existence. I'm happy we can at least come to an agreement about the basic assumption that an object's existence depends on its influence, however again it makes little sense to set this quantitative threshold and I'll tell you precisely why: By doing so, what you are implying is that existence itself is a quantitative property – i.e. the more influence something has, the more it exists. This contradicts the very nature of existence; something either exists or doesn't, there is no in-between state. Therefore my first premise is yet to be proven incorrect. "But this is not as completely arbitrary as it may seem because remember in order to have a political effect it must be vocal, therefore I further assert that the amount of influence given out is more than God can create." I am not sure what you mean by this. "…because my opponent has not showed how God is animated God does not exist therefore we vote CON." As I have shown above, my definition has not yet been proven incorrect. According to my definition of existence, I do not need to prove this. "This statement is grossly unfair, you state that earlier the debate must be skewed in your direction when I pointed out the extreme abusive nature of your premise, yet it is fine for you to specify what kind of arguments may be made it skewed against me. The only time you may state what kind of arguments may be made, if ever, is at the beginning of a debate…" Is it not allowed to pose new arguments outside of the first post? That is all I was doing – I was presenting a new argument which was intended to undermine the "scientific" approach to disproving my case, as we are arguing about something which under no circumstances can be proven by scientific means. If my argument was a fair one, with fair points, it should not matter where in the debate it was posted. It seems that you are simply trying to catch on to an insignificant technicality, while ignoring the meat of my arguments. "First off this number is wrong," It is an approximation. I do not have time to spend an hour researching the exact statistics, however with a simply Google search I found two sources which say the percentages are as I've said above. You can be sure that it's not too far off the mark – atheists might make up a large percentage of the internet population, but in the real world they make a pretty small minority. "A) Everyone who believes in a god believes in one God, this is incorrect because the biggest religion in the world believes in multiple Deities," It is irrelevant as long as they believe that there is at least some higher being. Allah, God, Jesus, Buddha, the numerous Hindu gods… they all have their technical differences. However you must understand that beyond those technicalities all these people share the same basic belief in a higher power. "B) This is further assuming that every judgment individuals make is mirrored by their faith, be it strong or weak, to a deity. Therefore we can drop the slippery slope you engineered manipulating data." I was not assuming that, and I do not think that is relevant either for my original point – that the overwhelming belief of so many people undoubtedly has an effect on society. I do not know what "manipulating" of data you are referring to, and I sure as heck did not engineer any "slippery slope." I'm not sure you know what that is, in the context of your statement. "…religions vary drastically" Refer to my above statement. Under the terms of this debate, the technical variations of different religions do not have any effect as long as these religions have a basic belief in some higher being. "…religion is not just a variation of what God is it is a variations of cultures and customs stemming from a common belief within a certain society, therefore this argument stands." The key word here is "just." You are right, it is not "just" a variation of what God is. But it still is in part. And again, for the terms of this debate the "variations of cultures and customs" are irrelevant. My original argument still stands iron strong and untouched by these technical issues. "we may extend the following and assume that my opponent agree because there were no attacks:" I do not attack because all I must do is defend the terms of the argument in order to win. "Influence: a person that exerts influence. Through this definition alone we ought to vote CON in this round." I have already disproven this assertion in round #2. "The statement a great majority of the people instantly negates my opponents entire argument. They say that god must influence on both the individual and collective level, yet looking at the definition of collective (dictionary.com) forming a whole, we can see that God has not influenced Atheists, thereby making this aspect of the second premise false, and yet another reason to vote CON." God has not influenced Atheists in the same sense that he has influenced religion people, true. However, has, for instance, President Obama "influenced" you? Has he invited you to dinner? Have you discussed politics? I will assume the answer to these questions to be "no." But he has still had some influence on you, albeit indirectly. Indirectly or directly, the existence of God has an influence on the lives of everyone. The question, again, is to what extent he has influence. I have already proven that this is irrelevant. =========================================================================== In my opponents previous post, he has made many technical remarks which were intended to display flaws in my argument, however if I have successfully refuted all of these remarks and my basic propositional logic from round #1 remains untouched, than PRO should win this round under the terms of the debate. The basic premise is this: ================== 1. The only requirement for something to "exist" is for it to have an influence on humanity, both on the individual and collective levels 2. Because a great majority of people believe in God, God has a strong influence on humanity both for individuals (who believe in God) and for the collective (on the historic/political level) 3. Because #2 is true, and #1 is true, therefore God exists.