There is no evidence for god

P: "I don't see it as necessary to refute any of the arguments"C: "That's awfully convenient for you. In each of the five arguments I presented, I asked for a response from Pro. No response has been given to four of these five arguments." Con is quote mining here. I gave my reasons as to why I haven't refuted these arguments. This isn't about convenience, but about the irrelevance of the arguments. To expand on that, Con seems to think that summarising five common arguments without any evidential support should be seen as sound by default. I can't emphasise enough how arguments are not evidence. Evidence is used to support arguments. Con has provided no evidence and therefore I see no reason to take the arguments as axiomatically correct unless shown otherwise. As a side, I am willing to debate each of these arguments separately in new debates, or even discuss them privately with Con if they so wish. "Pro either agrees with the arguments, or else is not able to reason against them. In either case, the arguments hold sound until Pro refutes each of them." This is a false dichotomy. My reasons for not refuting them were stated. "Pro correctly states that everything that exists is evidence for God. The fact that anything exists as opposed to nothing serves as evidence for God, as demonstrated by the third argument I presented." This is an assertion, and the third argument also only presents it as an assertion and demonstrates nothing. "Pro correctly states that everything that exists is evidence for God. The fact that anything exists as opposed to nothing serves as evidence for God, as demonstrated by the third argument I presented. I'm not sure how or why Pro decides to make the jump from "everything that exists is evidence for God" to "evidence becomes void of meaning." This is an unwarranted claim. Evidence has a definition: "something which shows that something else exists or is true" [1]. This definition is not in conflict with what we are discussing." It's quite a simple and straightforward concept to make the link between everything being evidence to evidence becoming meaningless. I did state this previously in that if everything is evidence for god then there is nothing to contrast against. As an analogy, take light and dark - if everything in existence was dark there would be no light, but dark only has meaning when we contrast it to light. If the concept of light has never existed, then it means nothing for something to be dark. The same works with evidence. "The fact that existence itself serves as evidence for God does not somehow make the word evidence "void of meaning." " Again, Con just asserts that existence is evidence, to the extent that they are saying it is a fact. Nothing has been presented here to demonstrate that this is the most reasonable stance to take, never mind to demonstrate that it is fact. To do that, Con should provide some evidence, but since Con has the pick of every. single. thing there is to use as "evidence", his argument becomes unfalsifiable. Again, this is down to lack of contrast - there is nothing that isn't evidence, therefore evidence loses meaning and therefore there is no evidence for god. "Pro has not provided a single argument to support his claim that "There is no evidence for God." As such, the burden of proof has not been carried by Pro thus far." I had provided an argument where I explained, like above, that there is no evidence for god if it's to be believed that everything is evidence for god because the term "evidence" loses meaning. "In the opening round I presented five arguments in favor of the existence of God. Four of these arguments went untouched by Pro. The argument that Pro did respond to was addressed above (in the section labeled "Rebuttal.") None of the arguments that I presented have been knocked down. Each remains sound and is therefore evidence for God's existence." Con doesn't seem to understand that arguments are not evidence. All Con has done is present five summaries of arguments and think that they hold sound until they are refuted. This is not how it works. Arguments are sound if they can be demonstrated to be sound, generally through reason and evidence, and it's the null hypothesis that is held as the default position. I am forced to hold to the null hypothesis as Con has only given summaries of their arguments and not supported them in anyway. I cannot refute that which isn't presented. "Pro has not carried the burden of proof for his claim that "There is no evidence for God." No arguments have been given to support this assertion, whereas five arguments have been given in favor of the existence of God. As it stands, we can conclude that there is evidence for God." Again, to repeat, I had given an argument. I've stated that argument again. Con even responded to that argument. Con even believes the first premise of my argument - that everything is evidence for god. From there, I have shown my reasoning as to why this means there is no evidence for god. I will also repeat again that arguments are not evidence. Evidence is used to support arguments. What I have found quite telling about Con's approach to provide evidence for god, is that they are using regurgitated arguments while simultaneously believing that everything in existence is evidence for god, but doesn't feel compelled to pick anything else but these arguments. Why is that?... Anyway, that's me done for this debate. I've enjoyed it and thank Con for taking part.