God Is Fake

My opponent claims that he has conclusively proved that God is fake, but he has not. He has only claimed that we have no evidence of a God, but has not proved that the concept of a God is in principle impossible. He has admitted on several occasions that this is in fact possible, and thus has negated his own resolution. You mentioned gnosticism last round, not the round before -- that was my only remark. You keep attacking my abilities, and went on to even suggest that you were "talking to a wall. " Please, voters, take account of the conduct violations on Pro's end. Pro goes on to re-introduce the same point he has repeated again and again: that God is fake because, so far as we know from available evidence, we cannot prove his existence. He has not demonstrated that he can prove a negative -- that God actually does not exist or could not exist. Admitting that science in the agnostic in the sense that it is flexible and accomodates new discoveries is, on his end, a concession, for it admits that scientific inquiry is limited to what we know now. It's doesn't matter how many times you attempt to change the goal post and distinguish between practical and theorotical because the question is ultimately irrelevant, and in neither case may you prove or disprove the notion that God exists. Because my point that this question has no truth value stands, I have negated the resolution. His differentiation between fake and non-existent is unfounded; fake refers to something that has been counterfeited -- that we know to be a sham. Non-existent is something which does not exist, which is subject to agnosticism because we cannot prove existence versus lack thereof. But this same logic extends to "fake," for Pro must prove that God is not only counterfeit, but counterfeit in virtue of the fact that he does not exist. He can't prove that, nor has he. I never confuse pure theory and scientific theory; I made the distinction clear that even in scientific theory ambiguity may exist. By virtue of the way that YOU defined theoretical world, debate is plausible -- and things are not certain. To say that something is certain is to suggest the existence of absolute truth: that I know for a fact every pertinent detail of my epistemology. We do not, nor can we ever given available data. My opponent is merely grasping at straws. No matter which world we use as a lens through which to view this question, the same distinction holds. He is also wrong on the polio example. If something can be proven to be non-existant, it must as a condition of that be fake. If it is not fake, then by definition it exists. This distinction is utterly meaningless, and hinges again on truth value -- an argument my opponent has dropped. My opponent can attack me all he would like, but the fake of the matter remains that he is offering meaningless silly arguments and dropping my claims left and right. He even went on to address my statement on deduction, and even concludes that "you can't prove there's no magic barrier around you. .. .. ". Does he not realize that he is once again conceding the debate, this time by noting that you can't prove a negative? I don't need to address whether big foot exists or not because that is not the subject of this debate. Like God, the question of whether he does has no truth value, so any attempt to prove his existence is a demogogic attempt to move the goal posts. Here's how I believe you should vote:Arguments: To me. Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof and has tried to move the goal posts in several attempts. Conduct: To me. Pro has attacked me on multiple occassions, suggested that I have a mental illnesses, claimed that he's arguing with a wall, attacked theists viciously, and questioned my intellectual ability. Sources: Tied. This debate didn't involve sources. Spelling and grammar: This was a tie so far as I could tell. Neither of us made any noticeable errors. Conclusion: My opponent has not fulfilled his BOP.