God Is Fake

I am accusing my opponent of over thinking, & suffering neurosis. An unavoidable thought is that people who wish to believe in a god hide behind the debate platform. There have been plenty of debates in which "God exists" was the conclusion, which looks good on the theists. However I fear that those debates may substitute as scientific evidence for god in the minds of theists.There are 2 worlds that we have to consider: the practical world, and the theoretical world. Nature and physics belong to the practical world, and so do questions about the creator of the universe. I need to explain how to prove things in these 2 worlds, because the methods are in stark contrast..In the theoretical world:Debates themselves belong to this world. Debates are pure theory, series of logic, and rules and protocols. To prove something in the theoretical world, you have to prove beyond any shred of doubt that something is true. My prime number example would also fall under this category. In the theoretical world, a series of logical arguments is all that is needed to confirm something with absolute certainty. Deduction is what makes this possible. Deduction is only possible however, if a model can be fully understood. In the theoretical world, models can be fully understood so this is not an issue.In the theoretical world, a model called "God" was created. The model was created by man. And in the theoretical world, people have proven that god exists. They have constructed their own models of the universe, and a creator which they call god is not only possible, but necessary to explain their manmade models..In the practical world:This is the world of the scientific method; observation, hypothesis and theory are the only tools we have to prove things in the practical world. Pulling from what I've said before, neither god or bigfoot have been proven true in the practical world. Scientific consensus is the only thing that matters in the practical world, because the only way to prove any nature related hypothesis is through induction. Deduction does not work in the practical world, because we aren't sure if we can fully understand nature. There's no way to prove that the laws of nature won't change in the next second for example. Your argument, that since we can't prove God's non-existence his existence has to be possible, is deductive not inductive.Just because god is real in the theoretical world, doesn't mean he is real in the practical world though. I fear that theists may unjustifiably claim that because there is evidence for god in the theoretical world (such as through debates and logic), that he exists in the practical world. That's a (pardon me) bastardization of the scientifc method. The only things that are true in the practical world are the things that have evidence to support them. God, nor bigfoot, have supporting evidence. Anything that doesn't have supporting evidence is "fake".---No one lives their lives as if goblins could jump out from any street alley and knaw their head off. It makes as much sense to live your life as if God will send you to hell for disrespecting him. This is a needless, stressful behavior. If a theists need absolute mathematical certainty that there's no goblins, bigfoots, or gods before you live your life as if they aren't real, then they suffer neurosis.Quoting Carl Jung: "I have frequently seen people become neurotic when they content themselves with inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life".---So to conclude, I can meet my burdon of proof in since the question of God's existence belongs to the practical world, not the theoretical world. The lack of evidence is the proof that God is fake, just as the lack of evidence for Bigfoot is proof that Bigfoot is fake.To end my turn in this round, I will use a theoretical example to prove god can't be real: Living your life as if God is real despite evidence is neurotic. A loving god wouldn't want people to suffer so he'd give evidence of himself.