God, as defined by the (Christian) Bible, is not real.

I will dive right in. 'Let us look at it closely to see that Con is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters and myself. ' Look closely at what my opponent is stating here. He is saying that I *really* have the role of Pro, because I am shooting for a positive. But, as I previously stated (and as my opponent has not understood), I am shooting for a positive, but I AM NOT AFFIRMING that the positive is true. I am opposing what the Pro affirms. The Pro (as what pro means) has a job to AFFIRM the resolution, which he is trying to get out of. While this is a tricky case, do not think I have tricked you as Pro tries to make it seem. He WILLINGLY accepted this debate, and claimed explicitly that he understood the rules and meaning of it. So his difficult task is only his own fault as he accepted this debate, not I. He has instigated it, and it is his *responsibility* to show affirm the resolution, that God ABSOLUTELY does not exist. His second point was regarding the first, which I have just proved inaccurate and incorrect. So now we are left with a situation that the Pro must prove that God can not under any circumstances exist. 'Accuracy is no longer 100% what is was' This, as I stated, is quite possibly, and probably true. Translations will change words, but will it necessarily change the ideas represented. Let's take a look at an example: ORIGINAL: Jesus walked through the meadow, took an apple from the tree, and ate it. He was glad that it was filling. TRANSLATED: Jesus strolled through the field, took some berries from a bush, and ate them. He was happy it filled him. Now if you look at the actual words, they are VERY different. So the careless observer might come along and say that it is false, because of the change. But the studious reader will notice that, though the words are different, they mean the exact same thing. Jesus ate, and he was satiated. While the words were different, the idea behind the words went unchanged. So the claim that the words are not accurate does not neccesitate that he meaning of the words is not accurate. Secondly, even if the idea is different, who's to say that it doesn't affirm the existence of God. It may portray some evil, baby killing God (imagine that) but nevertheless it still portrays the Christian God. So this point made by the Pro is hardly of consequence, and certainly does not prove God faulty. *PROOFS OF GOD'S NON-EXISTENCE* *Omnipresent* I'm not sure what this attack is saying. Perhaps he means that if God envelops all, then there is no room to make a creation. Now, there is a difference between being everyWHERE and being everyTHING. Being everywhere can mean a knowledge of all existing events, while not necessarily being them. So I can see a whole room on camera, and be (partially) omni-present, without actually being the room itself. This argument is flawed, and does not refute God. Also, I noticed the creator's creator argument. This is simple, it is only logical that at one point there was an uncaused cause, else where did everything come from? It only makes sense that God is this cause, uncaused. *Omnipotent* I believe I have refuted this in the last argument. But just as a clarification to my opponent, I understood what you meant by this argument. But I would like you to know that Ockham's razor does not mean what you portrayed it as. Ockham's razor says that "Entities should not me multiplied unecessarily". In laymen terms, it means that you shouldn't pick a more complicated reason if a simpler one already exists. *Omniscient* What you have shown is what SEEMS to be a logical incompatibility. There is, however, a simple answer. That God is currently omnipotent, but he has the ability (as omnipotence would show) to take away his own abilities. So if God was to make such a 'question', then he would be destroying his ability to be omniscient and omnipotent. So a smart God, (perhaps all knowing? ) would surely not destroy all of his power, simply because he could. I believe I have completely shown my opponent's points to be false. I have provided all of the clash POSSIBLE, and I certainly look forward to the next round with this opponent. Thank you.