God Is Fake

Pro begins by claiming that he can prove a negative because he can prove that 16 is not a prime number. This is because he can appeal to a positive -- the notion that he knows what a prime number is by virtue of the fact that mathematics is within human reach; it is so easily accessible to us that a third grader could define for you what a prime number is. So this argument is simply incoherent It is a non sequitur to say that, because you can prove a negative with respect to a positive, that you can disprove God.He then goes on to concede the debate by saying that "no one is ever guaranteed to disprove every imaginable hypothesis about nature though." This is his burden of proof. He must disprove what he calls an "imaginable hypothesis." And he admits that his logic regarding proving a negative was faulty, as it isn't universal and doesn't apply to all negatives.Then he accuses me of hypocrisy for claiming that he cannot win the debate. Let me cede one point: he could theoretically win the debate if I were to be banned, or if he were to salvage an unchecked votebombing campaign But, fairly, he cannot win this debate because he cannot possibly meet his own burden of proof.He concedes the debate again by admitting that it's possibly that there could be a creator. He assigns a faulty definition -- "fictional mythological character" -- and suggests that the concept of God, as we perceive it and as both dictionaries and religions define it, is a myth and a distortion. That could be so. But his argument for this not cohesively developed. It boils dow to "there's simply no evidence for him." I don't need to present the Kalan Cosmological Argument or any similar theory to win this debate, however, nor do I need to provide evidence for God. The burden is on him, let me repeat, so the burden of evidence to prove a negative is once again on his side.Pro goes on to say that, if you "agree that Bigfoot is fake," you should also agree that God is fake. But this is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, because that would imply that we are providing our opinions as to an issue. But we are not. He can assert that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and that someone likely thought the idea up and recorded it and that is the only plausible account that we have of him. That may be true. But can he prove conclusively with 100% accuracy that it is? Of course not. He even says that the creature was "probably a rabbit." His use of "probably" cuts to the crux of my argument, for this is the best that Pro can muster in proving a negative statement. He could be right or wrong, but ultimately the statement -- and this applies to both God and Bigfoot -- does not possess any truth value. We cannot prove them true or false because they are outside our realm of thinking, i.e., outside the realm of the natural world. This brings us back to Pro's burden of proof. He has to prove conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt, that the statement "God is fake" has truth value. He cannot possibly argue that a God could possibly exist as he has. That statement alone negates the resolution and opens up the possibility for ambiguity. The resolution does not call for a preponderence of evidence, but for a conclusive affirmation, on his part, that God is fake. As he has proven, he cannot defend this assertion.Conclusion Pro has once again failed to fulfill his burden of proof, and I have refuted every argument that he has placed on the table thus far. He also has not addressed my distinction between agnosticism and gnosticism, though his concession that God could "possibly" exist is a hint that he subscribes to agnosticism, which is incapable with his position in reference to this resolution.