God does not exist

Thank you for accepting my challenge RationalMadman. Note: I don't believe "unfalsifiable" is a word, however I take it to mean "unable to be proved false." Con has failed to meet the burden of proof in round 1. "The challenger must assume the burden of proof since I cannot prove a non-existence" Con offered no modifications to this requirement; therefore it is assumed he has accepted the burden. Con"s argument seems to be that God is not provable nor improvable however, and his points can be argued against. "God is not physical," Con has declared something that "God" is not (physical), however con has not offered any alternate state or being of God. Also, con has offered no proof or reasoning for this declaration. " and is scientifically unfalsifiable." Con has again made a declaration with no proof or reasoning behind his argument. Also, the state of being un-falsifiable does not equate to being at all. He is merely claiming that science cannot prove that "God" is non-existent. I would tend to agree as proving a nonexistence of a thing is virtually impossible. One can prove alternate explanations of causes, and then scientifically/logically verify said causes; however, a "physical" or "metaphysical" thing can only be proved to exist. Ex: I cannot "prove" a unicorn does not exist. However, the burden of proof to show a unicorn does exist rests on the shoulders of the claimant. This is why debate conditions set forth in Round 1 give the burden of proof to con. Non-existence is assumed until existence is proven. "God made you think you were pro on this matter and will control any argument you make against god. God will decide whether or not con or pro wins this debate. God allows you to exist and to be atheist until it (I don't call God a 'he') wishes you not to be." Again, con has offered no proof, whether in the form of logic/reasoning, science or other, to his declaration. He has merely made a statement. Ex: If I replace the word "God" with the word "unicorn" in con"s previous assertion, it is no more proof of a unicorn"s existence then it is of a "God"s" existence. "God is so powerful it is immeasurable by human means." Being in an "immeasurable" state does not prove existence, just as claiming "God" cannot be falsified does not prove existence. For example: "I have an infinitely long brick that cannot be measured because it is infinitely long." Claiming I have a brick that cannot be measured does not prove that it even exists. "God is so undetectable it is indeterminable by technological means." Con"s claim again falls short in the same way his previous claims have. Saying something is "unfalsifiable," "immeasurable" or "undetectable" does not prove it exists. In addition, con has offered no proof for any of his claims. It is my position Con has so far failed to meet his burden of proof and has only made claims without any reasoning, logic, science, or any other possible form of proof. Therefore, con has failed to prove "God" exists. As Con has failed to prove existence, it cannot be assumed using con"s arguments that "God" exists. Furthermore, con"s claims seem to show he cannot prove the existence of "God." If this is true, con has lost the argument by default as it is upon him to prove the existence.