God exists

No need to apologize about the time factor. But thank you for being considerate. You stated: "You are basically telling me that God exists because his existance cannot be disproven". That is a misrepresentation of my opening statement. I did not generalize the topic, I mentioned SCIENTIFIC CAPABILITIES as the base for my argument in the round. Your loose reference to what I was saying did not disprove anything I said about science. Don"t believe me? This is what I stated: In this round I will address one specific statement Con made and that is that he believes God does not exist because humans do not have the scientific capabilities to determine evidence of God"s existence. I addressed YOUR statement and never insinuated that the default position must be that therefore God exists. Again you stated: "Your argument proves that it is impossible to prove God's existence". No, I said it is unreasonable to use SCIENCE to prove something that is without its bounds as defined by humans. This was my conclusion: I think it is unreasonable to ask for scientific evidence when what is to be proved is outside of the capabilities of the scientific method as defined by mere mortals who wants to confine it to nature. Please do not create a supposed argument; I was clear on what I said. You did not address my argument at all so far. "Some of the examples you provide contain the ability to be proved by science (such as the benzene molecule), but technology isn't yet at the point to prove some of these concepts". This particular statement I found the most surprising. If you can admit the limits of science but leave open the possibility that science might develop the technology to prove things we cannot prove now, then it is only logical that it may be possible for science to also develop the technology one day to perhaps observe and prove the spirit world. And again, I did not say science cannot prove the Benzene molecule, I said: Where did the benzene molecule come from. Your optimism that science will someday explain things we cannot explain now should at best justify an agnostic view rather than atheistic view. But I suspect, you leave out that option because you are already influenced by your own biases. If bias was not involved you would never have taken the atheistic view while believing someday science may explain that which we cannot explain now. But then again, I might be wrong about the bias thing. "You mention that love is unable to be observed. "Love" is an emotion and not a physical object, therefore it can't be tested in a physical sense. However, science can be used to measure brain waves and other patterns that symbolize love". That's exactly my point and what I said. Science can observe the EFFECTS (.. only the effects of love can be observed). I fail to see your point for stating exactly what I said, unless it was to confirm what I said is true. "Lastly, I would like to provide a brief argument of my own. I feel that Christianity is used as a defense mechanism against the fear of death, which is one of the most feared concepts among humans (sources will be provided later on). Christians believe that they will go to heaven when they die, and others (depending on the branch of christianity) will go to hell. This provides a "shield" against the fear of death, as Christians don't want to accept the eternal concept of dying. Again, there is no way to prove or disprove heaven or hell, therefore we can rightfully assume these places don't exist since there is no scientific evidence supporting them". I understand what you try to say, but I am not going to respond to heaven and hell because that is not part of the debate. However, you claim science as you proof for not believing in God but then say: I FEEL (emphasis mine). You FEEL??? Is that scientific?? Please provide scientific evidence that prove what you FEEL is true or not. You make statements about the beginnings of Christianity, that they had a fear of death? The martyrs welcomed death!!!! How can you possibly prove your statement as absolutely true when the historical evidence is overwhelming against what you said? When the Christians were burned and tortured they could have saved themselves from death by denying Christ. Do you know what the RECORDED RESPONSES were? They would rather die than to deny their SAVIOUR whom they love. The Bible states it very clearly that love drives out fear. It"s something even true today. But please go ahead and provide the scientific evidence for your statement. I know you said you will provide evidence, and not necessarily scientific evidence, but science was your reason for not believing so I would expect that you use science for the claims you make. If not, you just prove my point that science has limits and cannot be used to prove everything. Do you want references? Read the Church father library or Foxe's book of martyrs. You state: "In conclusion, my opponent didn't provide any evidence of God's existence, the topic of the debate, in the last round. Again, it is impossible to provide evdidence of God's existence, and I will happily rebut any response to this claim". I stated: If you take the con position it will be up to you to provide arguments why you disagree with my statement. You did not specifically ask for any evidence in your opening, so it was not necessarily required of me to do so. However, you are not entirely correct in what you say. I said the following: God is a being; it was revealed that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh. This was recorded and the historicity of Jesus is well attested too. Scientific capabilities cannot determine whether someone existed in the past or whether the legacy left behind by that person is true or false. The limitations of scientific capabilities is evident in that a person who lived in the past cannot be observed in the present by science or recreated to prove that the person in question existed. That was an example of what I consider to be proof for the existence of God. Please feel free to refute it in your rebuttal using SCIENCE.