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

If you do not explain the resolution in your own words in round 1 and satisfactorily demonstrate to me that you understand the resolution, the debate will not take place and I win by default. (2)This debate is not concerned with philosophical possibilities. It is possible to conceive of a planet run by hobgoblins, where gravity is stronger than electromagnetism, but the ability to conceive of that scenario does mean that humankind should automatically have an interest in such a possibility and invest research in anti-hobgoblin weaponry. Likewise, just because you can conceive of god, does not mean that humankind should take interest in the ramifications of the existence of such a thing. There has been no evidence for god that has satisfied the scientific community of cosmologists, and in accepting the debate, you accept this. (3)You shall not misuse the word "evidence". Within this debate, to be clear, the word evidence means "repeatable quantifiable observation, such as measuring the weight of a stone or the charge of an electron". A personal anecdote, such as "I was overwhelmed by the power of god", will not be considered evidence of anything other than your supposed emotional state. (4)It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Using the statement "it is impossible to prove god exists", or "it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist", is not a valid argument within this debate. (5)"God" shall be defined as in this quote from George Carlin, from Con's round 1 until the end of the debate:If it's true that we're all from the center of a star (every atom in each of us from the center of a star) then we're all the same thing; even a coke machine or a cigarette butt in the street in buffalo is made out of atoms that came from a star. They've all been recycled thousands of times as have you and I. And therefore, it's only ME out there, so what is there to be afraid of? What is there that needs solace seeking? Nothing. There's nothing to be afraid of because it's all us. The trouble is we have been separated by being born and given a name and an identity and being individuated. We've been separated from the oneness and that's what religion exploits; that people have this yearning to be part of the overall "one" again. So they exploit that, they call it "god", they say he has rules, and I think it's cruel. I think you can do it absent from religion. If you think there is a man-like, all-powerful deity in the sky, or some other unexplored region of existence, you cannot refer to him as "God" (starting from Con1's round 1 until the end of the debate), instead you must refer to him as "The Creator of the Universe", "The thing that listens to our prayers, evaluates the morality of our life, and sends our consciousness to some unexplored region of existence following death", or anything else that specifically describes what you are trying to get at. ---Here I shall explain the resolution in my own words, using my analogy with Bigfoot: The origin of Bigfoot, as far as we can scientifically be certain, was that a man saw something move through the bushes and to make up for the lack of sensory perception, he superstitiously assumed that it was a tall, ape-like beast capable of mutilating him to death (the brain can imagine things that aren't there, refer to the image below. Do you fear the rocks? Why? ). He described his encounter with other people, and then other people’s brains started doing the same thing, except they hadn’t even seen the thing in the bushes, they just heard the bewildered woodsman describe his close encounter with an unknown object. My argument is that God has the same kind of origins as Bigfoot. No one really knows who the first man was to say “There’s a God in the sky who created everything and has almighty power over us all”, but no such being has actually been observed (just like no Bigfoot has ever been observed). One of our ancestors was probably out in a field and saw lightning, and his brain incorrectly filled in the rest. It was just a static discharge, but our ancestor thought it was an angry man in the sky hurling blazing arrows down at earth. This is the most likely origin of the conception of a powerful being that sits above us, created everything, and has complete control over all of us. I ask you to explain the resolution in your own words in round 1 as well. ---Accept the debate only if you accept the terms and conditions. I expect an honest, clean debate.