It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed

Let me make this very clear. You cannot rewrite a resolution in round two of a debate. You should lose conduct marks for even trying to do it. Pro claims that the resolution I am arguing in favor of is: It's more likely that there was a natural observation/measurement only explainable by the existence of a god, rather than said natural observation/measurement being explainable by 'filling in'. Errors with this resolution: #1 This is not at all the resolution I am arguing in favor of. The word 'measurement' nowhere in the original resolution and has absolutely no relevance to this debate. #2 This has nothing to do with whether on not god was explained by 'filling in', the original resolution does not refer to this at all. #3 This is not a question of whether or not god was the only explanation, it is a question of whether god was observed or not. Thus, I negate this new resolution on those three grounds. My opponent demands that I supply objective evidence for the existence of a Theistic god. Not only doe she fail to clarify which God he is referring to, leaving me wondering what evidence I should be searching for. Additionally, he fails to realize that absolutely no objectively verifiable evidence whatsoever is required for one to make a natural observation. He also fallaciously claims that I am standing for his side of the debate, this is supported by zero explanation of evidence on his part and shall be negated using the same extent of proof. My opponent concedes that religious people are not purposefully telling a lie. This means he concedes that God was not made up. 'Made up' is the past tense of 'make up' I shall now observe almost all of the definitions of 'make up' available on the the Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. To put together; construct or compose: make up a prescription. If God was constructed or composed, this requires the intent of the composer to 'invent' something that didn't already exist. 2. To constitute; form: Ten years make up a decade. This would mean that God would have to constitute something greater. 3. a. To alter one's appearance for a role on the stage, as with a costume and cosmetics. This requires intent to deceive b. To apply cosmetics. This means that God wore cosmetics. 4. To devise as a fiction or falsehood; invent: made up an excuse. This was negated by my opponent's concession that god was not intentionally devised. 5. a. To make good (a deficit or lack): made up the difference in the bill. This requires intent to make up for something that is lost. God doesn't do this and if my opponent chooses to prove that God does, I am willing to disprove it. b. To compensate for: make up for lost time. I don't see how God makes up for lost time. 6. To resolve a quarrel: kissed and made up. My opponent concedes that God was not intentionally invented for an ulterior motive so this is negated by Pro's assertion. 7. To make ingratiating or fawning overtures. Used with to: made up to his friend's boss. I am not sure how God could fit this definition. 8. To take (an examination or course) again or at a later time because of previous absence or failure. This, again, has no relevance to God. 9. To set in order: make up a room. God isn't set in order, I would like to see proof of this. 10. Printing To select and arrange material for: made up the front page. This is possibly true of God in the Bible, but the question is which is more likely and someone observing God is more likely. Now I shall run through the available definition of 'naturalistic observation': http://psychology.about.com... Naturalistic observation differs from structured observation in that it involves looking at a behavior as it occurs in its natural setting with no attempts at intervention on the part of the researcher. God very much could fit that definition. He appears to control certain events via miracles and perhaps makes people see curses and blessings before their eyes that they did not intervene to produce. If this isn't what my opponent was referring to, I would like them to supply their own definitions. As I said in round one, to observe requires no objective verification of the observation.