God probably exists

Response Part 1: YOU ARE FAILING TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES OF EACH ROUND THAT YOU SET OUT. YOU ALSO BEGAN THE RUDENESS. CLEARLY YOUR RULES DIDN"T APPLY TO YOU. I call fraud. con said: ///Response to Part 2: As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:". I did not do as you claimed and said "God=Religion=Christianity" but instead I read the preface and saw that it says "This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate." So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed. Well as I am sure you will see in the next section who has been defining words.// NOPE, YOU CAN"T CONTROL EVERY TERM IN THE DEBATE TO SUIT YOURSELF AS THE ROUNDS GO BY. YOU ALSO CAN"T INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO USE A FALLACY OF COMPOSITION (PRETENDING RELIGION=CHRSITIANITY WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE IT) THAT"S AN IMMEDIATE FORFEIT-A HIDDEN ADVANTAGE, SEVERAL-FOR SHAME. Con said: ///Response to Part 1: 1. ("4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere") " Part 4 of the rules/// YOU VIOLATED THAT FIRST IN ROUND 3, YOUR BAD. CON SAID: ///("11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss") " Part 11 of the rules/// 2.THEN YOU LOSE THE DEBATE, AND CON WINS FOR POINTING OUT YOUR NON-STOP FALLACY OF COMPOSITION AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE STEPS LAID OUT FOR ROUNDS IN YOUR OWN RULES, WRITTEN BY YOU. CON SAID: ///As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:". I did not do as you claimed and said "God=Religion=Christianity" but instead I read the preface and saw that it says "This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate." So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed./// Nope you don"t get to use clear words like "religion" when you"re only referring to ONE RELIGION, that"s called a "fallacy of composition" also a strawman of religion. You can"t include the right to use fallacies in your rules-that proves CHEATING, nothing more eloquent. You defined THREE words, if you were going to talk about a 4th more than the other 3 combined (which you did with "religion") it would have behoved you to define that one too. You didn"t, I did, my priority-those are the rules and no matter what crazy rules you come up with THEY CANNOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO USE AN ENDLESS FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: PRETENDING "RELIGION" IS DEFINED AS "CHRISTIANTY." FAIL. CON SAID: ///Response to Part 2: Well as far as you have shown, he does not fit the definition so that is a bit silly to mention. What do you mean about this lack of free will? You were meant to be arguing against my point, my point had nothing to do with free-will. Either way, I showed you that your misleading experiment was wrong and meaningless, thus we could not tell if there was free will or not. Neither does predetermines suggest much about the Christian god./// The Christian god may be YOUR favorite, but this debate defined god, NOT AS JESUS OR JEHOVAH BUT as a creator and ruler of the universe. Quite the leap you keep making. CON SAID:///Are you not going to address the point that you made about evolution does not explain the beginning of the universe? It seems to me that you had not mentioned that again" I wonder if you admit that that was wrong. PM me and let me know./// Right it doesn"t. Evolution applies to planet Earth, and assumably other life-supporting planets. In the case we know, it applies to 500million years? However old the amoebas are" not to the birth of the Universe, which is 16 Billion or more years old. CON SAID: ///Response to Part 4: As I said the definition of religion, as stated by oxford dictionary (required by the rules) is "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:". I did not do as you claimed and said "God=Religion=Christianity" but instead I read the preface and saw that it says "This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate." So as you can see I did not say anything about what you have claimed./// No you never said that, that"s an outright lie. I used a dictionary, and it said what it said, you can"t claim to own EVERY TERM IN THE DEBATE. What a fraud"s claim, you controlled the 3 words you defined. I defined one, and that"s too damn bad that you didn"t get there first. "We"ll be dealing with Christianity" doesn"t mean anything, and has NO TEETH. Where does it say we cannot address OTHER religions if you start talking about a broader term, like RELIGION, and over and over. What nonsense-you can"t make it up as you go. You define the terms you NEED. You hardly mentioned god, yet went on and on about a word you never addressed. I did, too bad. Live and learn. /// I am glad to have had this debate with you. Unfortunately your violation of rules alone will (should) lead to my win. I appreciate your points and am honoured to have been the one who made you think of these arguments. Perhaps next debate you will change your arguments so that you have a better chance of winning. If indeed you would like me to argue against you beliefs in particular just do as I said in the preface (hope you have since read it). CON SAID: ///"This debate will be dealing with Christianity. If you would like to discuss another belief PM me and we will look into having a debate." " Prefacel/// That doesn"t mean every word you feel like means whatever you want as we go along-only the ones YOU DEFINE. otherwise you clearly demand advantages in your rules-again, an immediate forfeit by ANY DEBATE RULES, especially terms so broad as "religion" which you selfishly claim means "christianity" what a ridiculous claim and only one self serving in nature, in addition it is an duplicitous attempt to get special rights in this debate, shameful. Religion is not Christianity, nor could that claim be used in any way except deception, your mistake. FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, and a claim that you have a right to make up ALL DEFINTIIONS in the debate to suit your argument. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. It works how I showed you: I respect the priority of definitions, so should my opponent. You defined 3 words, you gave the method for defining others, I used it, defined ONE. Your 3 defined terms were respected and referred to throughout the debate. Mine was ignored in favor of a fallacy of composition. Get real. You violated the rules left and right and reveal yourself as wanting a rigged game, and unable to assess your opponent.