God(s) existence

REFUTATION1.) You cannot prove that God doesn't existWhat are you trying to say here? What trap? Of course, I cannot prove that something isn't existent. It is a rule of logic: you never prove a negative. However, you simply refute what the opposition has to say: is the opp. saying that we cannot prove that God exists? This is an argument which would easily make a Con-ballot. The opposition has shown here that he is unwilling to debate this issue further. He is claiming that since one cannot prove a negative (one can merely refute the points made in support of the positive), that this argument is not defensible on the Con-side. So what? Either the statement cannot be proven (a Con-ballot) or BoP lies on Pro to prove the existence of a God.2.) Invalidation of Argument from PhysicsThis argument is still wholly supported: the opposition has taken an excerpt of the questions (that no answers have been provided to) and simply stated that my argument is invalidated. The opposition seems to be cherry-picking my case. By no way was that the whole essence of my case. I go on to describe prescriptive and descriptive laws. Where is this to be seen in the refutation of my case? And even if I were to take the assumption that questions are invalid, I can easily assert that the opposition's case does not prove a single thing. For " Newton told us, "gravity!" and he is right, but why should the universe have to obey laws of gravity?" is simply a "handwriting of God". What proof? There is no essence in affirming the existence of God with that argument. Perhaps the opp. should thank me-I gave his argument essence.3.) Objection to CA2The opposition says that God's creation is all-good, and original sin corrupted it. How does this conclusion refute my argument from perfection? Again, the opposition throws ad hominem attacks on me for not understanding the Christian faith. However, this debate has barely anything to do with Christianity. We are talking about the monotheistic God, as outlined in R1. Hence, apart from being a mere (baseless) ad hominem, his conclusion (led via ad hominem, hence clearly invalid) is pure ignoratio elenchi. 4.) Objection to CA3Quoting from the source of the Opp.: "It is the fraction formed by the number 1 divided by the number formed by 1 followed by 130 zeros!" I see no refutation of this argument. All my points have been affirmed: it is pure argumentum ad ignoratum. Just because it is unlikely, doesn't mean that there must be a pre-existing cause.5.) Objection to A6This is the most absurd, unsound, irrelevant and invalid argument that this debate has seen. The Bible does not prove anything-if it is truly a "love letter" from God to humanity, then it is perhaps not much differing from Sonnet 130 written be Shakespeare, which states: "And in some perfumes is there more delight, Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks." I love this love letter-it is a pessimistic view of love. The Bible represents a pessimistic view of human life. If God truly intended the Bible as a "love letter", then why would He say "“Cursed is the ground because of you: through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food, until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 2:4-3:24) God hates humans. ""Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious." (Hosea 9:15) (and does it annoy the opp. that Harry Potter, a better written novel than the Bible in my opinion, sold more than 100 million copies?) What significance does the Bible have? In this debate, nothing. Nothing at all. The Bible does not give direct proof of God-actually, it gives no proof of God whatsoever. By proof, I mean a rational argument for the existence of God-the Bible fails to prove it.6.) Argument from MiraclesThere is a simple attack needed on this: who did it? Why were the Pagan philosophers of Athens, who believed in idols, given miracles which allowed them to be seen at two places at the same time? How about the Hindus, whose paganistic prayers were believed to have given them good grades? Even a simple Buddhist like me experiences this-why is it that I, an unbeliever, experience so many miracles in my life? Who did it? And even if miracles were proven to be true, this does not prove that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. For such a God would clearly be able to give food to the starving Africans in Africa. He would have also been capable of saving His sons from the wrath of the "idol worshippers" during Iraq's Northern Offensive, which killed millions of Christians. Why is it so that He is incapable of delivering huge miracles? Again, nothing was proved. Nothing was denied. All my points remains affirmed. THE RESOLUTION IS NEGATED.