God's wrath appears in response to defiance against Him.

The debate is already over because PRO has not fulfilled his burden of proof and has dropped my two main contentions. Extend them. I will now respond to each of his arguments. PRO states, "As I said, you are defying God and He proves His wrath by your death."I never said that I was defying God. I don't believe in God. For it to be true that I supposedly know that I am defying him, I would need to believe in him. However, I do not, and you've provided no evidence or reason that I should believe in him. PRO states, "I don't have to prove anything, God proves Himself."This is positively laughable. How has God supposedly proved himself? I have seen no evidence for him, nor has PRO provided any, and his burden of proof in this debate does require that he prove the existence of God. His argument essentially boils down to "God exists because trust me." But what he saying is nothing more than assertion, and should thus be discarded. PRO states, "All you are doing is causing God's wrath to build againt you for defying Him."This is another assertion by PRO, one which he hasn't proven in the slightest bit. PRO states, PRO has dropped my argument that if God existed and actually loved me, he wouldn't "pour out his wraith" on me merely for questioning his existence with a capacity he supposedly gave me. Why would God have no choice but to pour out his wraith on me if in fact he exists? Isn't he, in your judgment, omnipotent? Why would an omnipotent God have no choice? Doesn't he create the rules by which he operates?PRO's arguments are unbelievably dogmatic and unfounded. PRO states, "Your rebuttals in defiance against Him won't get you out of His wrath."In other words, he is going to continue to make assertions without evidence instead of responding to my rebuttals, thus dropping points again and again. PRO states, "You are trying to throw things in my face in defiance of God."This isn't true. As I have said, I don't believe in God, so I cannot defy him, at least not intentionally. I am not trying to, as you say, "throw things in your face." Rather, I am merely responding to your arguments. PRO states, "It does not matter how much you insist he cannot be proven. He is God and you are one of His creatures and He loves you and if you do not stop defying Him, He will make sure you feel his wrath." If he can be proven, then why haven't you proven him? Why have you only provided assertions and circular logic? Why are merely restating the resolution instead of making arguments in defense of your case?Once again, PRO's case boils down to "I'm right, so therefore I'm right, because trust me." PRO states, "I don't have to prove anything. God is God whether you accept proof or not."In order to win this debate you did need to provide proof, which you haven't done, and thus you haven't fulfilled your BOP. It's not a matter of accepting proof because you haven't provided any. If you provided proof, I'd reconsider my position, but you have provided none, so I have no reason to trust your position as a matter of blind faith. PRO states, "Even if you fall into the fire of Hell today, you will defy God the same way you are defying Him now insisting His wrath cannot abide on you and never being able to know anything but His wrath against your defiance of Him." PRO dropped my argument pointing out his contradiction as to what he thinks will happen to me upon my death. Again, this is nothing more than an assertion which hinges on the existence of God. For me to defy God, I would need to believe in him, which I don't. So this point doesn't bring PRO even remotely closer to fulfilling his BOP. PRO states, "God's wrath s on you now but you refuse to recognize it and that only causes His wrath to build."PRO simply keeps repeating himself instead of providing evidence. How can he prove this? He is essentially saying that I must believe in God but and simply choosing to defy him.Let's even consider a hypothetical scenario where his supposition is true and atheists/agnostics don't exist. If that were the case, how is anyone plagued to eternal damnation? I thought the ultimate sin was denying God. If, according to PRO, no one can defy God, no one can be subject to his wrath. It's interesting that PRO can believe in something for which there is no evidence, but then he meets a living, breathing atheist, and refuses to believe in him. PRO states, "How long do you think He will be merciful to you and hold back from pouring out His wrath on you?" I have no idea, probably because I don't believe in him and you haven't provded any evidence to change my opinion or to fulfill your BOP, so therefore I have no reason to believe in him, and therefore this question becomes utterly irrelevant.PRO states, "This could be your last day."My last day to live? That's quite possible, as is anything else, but that doesn't prove the existence of God. PRO states, "In fact, as far as I know, God could have called an end to your defiance already......maybe you are already gone off to Hell. Hello? are you still there? God is still there. Are you?"No, I'm still here, and the resolution is still negated.It's interesting that now PRO has made up his mind and has decided that, instead of perishing eternally, I will go to hell, in his judgment.Anyway, there isn't anything left to respond to. PRO didn't make a single substantive point supporting his position or fulfilling his burden of proof. Therefore, I highly urge a CON ballot.