Debate: DO GODS EXIST??
Side: No

"Didn't you just say "in the face of contrary evidence"? Look at your previous post! Show me the evidence to the contrary!"I hate having to explain the obvious, but here you go:The entire argument rests upon burden of proof. You are defending a positive proposition which means you are obligated to provide proof. Atheists represent the default position. It's like with my leprechaun example, atheists would be the people who don't believe in leprechauns because your side has only asserted the existence of leprechauns with no proof.Anything in addition to this last point isn't even needed to cut your position down. You can tell me all the theology you want, but it all rests upon the burden of proof of your god.Therefore, being an atheist I essentially have to do nothing to debate you or any theist because you guys (theists) are the ones making a radical claim about the universe that must be backed by equally radical evidence.Now let's get on to the evidence against your position. You subscribe to a Christian god. Therefore I can just point out the inconsistencies in the bible, such as our ability to know that humans were not created in a garden of Eden but evolved from less complex species, that a global flood never happened and is completely impossible, that men cannot rise from the dead like Jesus was claimed to have, etc. I can point out that there are religions older than Christianity and Judaism, like Hinduism, which make the idea of your religion being the word of god silly (because why would god's religion come AFTER hundreds of ancient religions?). These types of problems make the Christian doctrine fallible, and thus cast severe doubt upon its god.Now, if I want to disprove your god, I can't do so with evidence. Gods can't be disproven this way. But if you make claims about them that are mutually exclusive, then the god cannot exist. For example, the Christian god is described as all-knowing and allowing free will. This is a contradiction, both cannot exist simultaneously. It is also defined as all-loving but hell exist, another contradiction. It is defined as all-powerful and perfect but its creation is flawed, a contradiction.That you believe in a Christian god despite these inconsistencies and refuse to acknowledge the evidence against you makes you close-minded."You don't need to prove God doesn't exist? Really? You can just say that God doesn't exist? What kinda stupid debater are you? "See: burden of proof for positive claims."So in a debate entitled "Do horses exist?" You can just say that horses don't exist? That's how you can just win your debate? Wow, I wish I can be a hypocrite like you and be completely oblivious about it... "Glad you asked and provided a real-world example.Let's say that a debate entitled "Do horses exist?" were created. Imagine that horses weren't so common or well-known that it could be a legitimate debate question.Those arguing against might say "we've never heard of this creature, or seen one, so we don't believe they exist."Those arguing for the existence of horses need only provide a photograph of a horse, a video showing it walking around, etc. Then their case is made, they proved their case, unless their media were found to be faked (but we assume it isn't).What did you do to prove the existence of your horse? You said your horse was above our ability to detect it, therefore could never be evidenced. You said your horse must exist because the universe is complicated and has order. Some people here said they know horses exist because they see it in a child's face, or feel it in their hearts.In other words, you didn't provide your photograph or video of god."I've linked God to matter and order."I've linked leprechauns to order and matter, because they must explain how matter got here. Therefore they exist.