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

Good day to Con, readers, debaters. 'Now Pro affirms that there is an orange in the box. Con denies that there is an orange in that box. The burden of proof necessitates that Pro prove that the orange is in there, as opposed to Con proving there isn't. The Con's job then, would be to show why the Pro's proof is inadequate in showing that an orange is in that box.' - This is a nice example. Let us look at it closely to see that Con is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters and myself. 'Pro affirms that there is an orange in the box' - This comes down to who makes a claim first; Con created this debate and has subsequently created a double negative in his position making him Pro 'God of the Christian Bible exists' - This means, metaphorically as Con mentioned, that he is Pro and he is stating there is an orange in a box. Until this claim is made, Con (myself, Pro) can not make a claim against an orange in a box until I am aware that someone is stating that said orange in a box is there. Con's point refuted. 'The Pro is AFFIRMING that no such entity of said 'God' exists. So when instigating such a challenge, it is still necessary that the Pro have proof of his claims.' 'Therefore, Pro must absolutely prove that there can in NO WAY be a God that is described in the Christian Bible. Even if there is an extremely minute chance, this leaves the possibility, and Aff does not meet the burden of proof, and loses the debate.' - See above refutation of Con's points re - the orange in a box metaphor. I am affirming that no such entity as the 'God of Christianity in the Bible' exists. This can only follow on as a product of causality due to my opponent making the claim that the 'God of Christianity in the Bible' exists. I will endeavour to prove that the 'Christian God of the Bible' does not exist. In this debate though, as per Con's layout of the rounds, round 1 was for a set up and agreement of terms of debate and positions adopted. Rounds 2 and 3 are for arguments to be put forward. No argument was presented by Con for the existence of God, Con's round nullified. Con's only point is that Con claims for esoteric knowledge being held back from people who subsequently (note -subsequently - you can not refute something if you don't know someone is claiming something extraordinary) disagree. Con has argued that ' The burden of proof necessitates that Pro prove that the orange is in there ' - translate this to, Con (Mr_Jack_Nixon) is Pro that 'The Christian God of the Bible' exists. Proof rests with Pro (Con - Mr_Jack_Nixon) 'Well let's take a look at my opponent arguments affirming the non-existence of God.' - As I mentioned above, I am sticking to Con's layout of the rounds. In the spirit of avoiding semantics and such, I make the request that Con resist begging the question by referring to Bible passages/quotes. As I mentioned also, the Bible is an old book, subject to translations from foreign languages in which the accuracy is no longer 100% as compared as the original scriptures - e.g. if a word cannot be translated the next best word will be used in its place. Grammar has evolved from the times of the original scriptures being written and as such, first, second, third person positions may be written from a different perspective. Con's point refuted. I do not recognise my position to be unfair. Burden of proof lies with Con. Proofs of the Christian God's non-existence. Omnipresent - God is everywhere = God is everything. Self-refuting as God could not have been self-creating. Presupposes that God would have needed to be something before God was recognised as God - Who created the creator, who designed the designer etc - refuted. Omnipotent - Ockham's razor. As above Omnipresent argument, the presupposition that God was something else before God became God means that God's original form was more powerful than the incarnation of God we now have - God's former self either reduced in power to take a lower form, or, created an inferior being - refuted Omniscient - Omnipotence would make God able to create an unanswerable question. This refutes the ability to know everything as, why would God not know the answer the to the unanswerable question that God can make? - Refuted.