It doesn't make sense giving proof of something that doesn't have proof to support it. Opponents in the usual God exists debate have no proof to support God, so then they ask what proof is there to prove he DOESN'T exist.
God exists. I don't mean that there is bearded invisible giant man in the sky who puts people who don't believe in him in hell. I mean a non-literal God. This isn't an explanation for the creation of the universe, or a reason to resist political change and defy evidence in front of one's face. This is and idea that exists to give life purpose and meaning, to help us live in our pointless little lives. The God that exists isn't the one that the previous people you've debated with believe in. It is a God that was created by man. The belief in God isn't there because it makes sense; it doesn't, but it benefits mankind. If more fundamentalist Christians and atheists were able to break free of their narrow points of view and accept this, the world would be a better place.
Big misinterpretation. This debate isn't about whether God exists or not, it is that in such a debate the Burden of Proof or BOP should be on Pro, meaning the one who says God exists. The BOP can't be shared or on Con as how can you have proof that something isn't here? For instance, I can say I have proof that you are not in my house by giving your address. But suppose I don't where you live, and I have determine whether you live in my city or not, how can I find proof that you are not in my city? Get the idea?
No. I am not misinterpreting anything, I am a Christian, I believe in God, and that is what I am arguing. I am just arguing it in a different way from the most Christians you might debate this with. And the way in which i believe in God means that the only evidence I need is, well, the personal religious opinion of me and many others. This is just a different way that I believe in God, and it is not wrong. This actually is a whether God exists or not debate. It is a fact to me and the others that believe this, and our interpretation is its own proof.
Con seems to be out of his mind. This debate is not about whether God exists or not, but that in such a debate the burden of proof should be on Pro rather than be shared or on con. Since Con failed to provide any argument so far related to the resolution, and I have proved the resolution, please vote for me.
The name of this debate is "If God Exists Debate". I apologize for misinterpreting the title as what the words exactly said. If you agree with me, vote for me, on the God side. If you don't then don't.