Here's my concluding statement:
If you want to debate religion more convincingly in the future, might I make a suggestion? Use the KISS method ("Keep It Simple, Stupid"). Disguising the weakness of your central premise by flooding it with complexity, and regurgitated intellectualism, is like a Jedi trick - it only works on the weak-minded. My premise is simple: God is an implausible hypothesis, devoid of evidence. You've made a claim (God exists). I've argued that this claim is extraordinary, and thus requires extraordinary evidence. You've failed to present this evidence. You've offered some philosophical arguments as evidence, but I've argued that philosophy does not constitute evidence. We've quibbled about the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Let's put those words away. Does God exist in the mind, or outside of it? Philosophy cannot prove the existence of what is outside the mind. Only empirical evidence can. I do not refute the existence of God as a concept inside people's minds. But that is, intrinsically, subjective. Different people can have different conceptions of God, or even no conception at all (and still be moral agents), and neither of those conclusions are "right" or "wrong" in and of themselves, because they do not correspond to any material entity that exists and can be verified. Is there any point in continuing this discussion further?