A challenge!

[Astonished]

I find in telling people already know there are no proofs for God before proofs are presented. *smiles*

There were valid arguments presented before, what was disputed was not the validity of the argument, but if all the premises were sound. So I have new angles and arguments to prove all the premises are sound.

Why do you in haste conclude there is no evidence or proof?

Here's the problem. Skeptical thinkers have no choice in what they believe. If the evidence points one way, our beliefs form or re-shape themselves to fit with the evidence. If you actually had evidence, then no matter how horrible its implications would be, we wouldn't be able to deny it. The fact that we're still in the same position we're in is proof that the 'evidence' you present is either not, in fact, any evidence of any kind at all, or is evidence of something for which your conclusions are incorrect. It's quite simple, really. Since your god is a logical impossibility, this seems to rule out the need for debate entirely, or so one who thinks rationally would conclude. Maybe you should try that once in your life. A god who forbids that is a demon in disguise, metaphorically speaking of course.