People should stop trying to prove or disprove that god exists.

---"I'm saying that, as far as god exists, there is no proof that he exists or doesn't exist. Your side of the debate is providing evidence that either proves or disproves he exists."--- You are incorrect. __________________ Consider the absurdity of the AFF's position. He says that you can't prove nor disprove the existence of God. Well, according to Albert Sweigart from his video, "An Atheist Response". "[...]Next firefly brings up that both atheism and christianity require faith because you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. But the problem with this argument is that you really can't prove or disprove the existance of pretty much anything outside of abstract areas like mathematics or predicate logic. You can't prove that werewolves don't exist. You can't prove that Invisible Pink unicorns don't exist. You can't prove that carniverous humanoid underground dwellers don't exist. Technically this means we have to be agnostic about the existance of invisible pink unicorns and everything else. But we'd feel rather silly if we had to admit that there is a remote chance that Santa Claus really does exists building those wooden toys that no kid ever gets for Christmas." Just step outside the logos bubble for a moment and think rationally. The PRO's argument is that 'just because theres no evidence doesn't mean he doesn't exist'. 'For all we know he could be choosing to hide his existence from you.' I don't know about you, but that sounds like a point that comes from your stereotypical conspiracy theorist. All the arguments are nonfalsifiable. Al continues, "The issue here is who has the burden of proof. If I told everyone that I saw a UFO land in my backyard, the burden of proof would be on me to produce evidence that this actually happened because I'm the one making the sensational claim. I don't have to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because I'm not the one making that claim. The burden of proof rests with the unicornians. This is why I consider myself an atheist even though technically I can't disprove the existence of the Christian God. If you claim that an omnipotent God sent his son to be crucified so he could rise into Heaven and provide salvation for mankind, you'll have to produce sufficient evidence if you want me to believe you. Otherwise I'll simply believe that that isn't the case. Besides, most people don't have a problem with being atheists with regards to the gods of other religions, like Zeus or Aji-Suki-Taka-Hiko-Ne." If people that watch this debate want to be dumb and vote solely based on the technicalities of an argument, sure, at this point the AFF has already won. You can never defeat blind faith with its nonfalsifiable arguments. I think it's sufficient already to say that God DOES NOT EXIST if we cannot find evidence that he does. Since the PRO already admits that there is no evidence of God existing, I need go no further. His only standing argument then is that..... "he could be choosing to hide his existence from you." .....which just leads to the pink unicorns and the existence of santy clause. Which I'd like to believe that the audience of this debate isn't about to honestly believe in.