It's true there are no proofs outside of Math and logic, but the things I argue are based upon logic. And anyone who wants to debate the existence of God must first accept for the sake of argument that God could exist. It's a logical foul to pretend to join such a debate and then automatically claim victory because one cannot prove what is accepted for the sake of argument. The debate itself is logical reasoning over hypotheticals. So, one can prove that certain things are logically true about those hypotheticals without proving them to be absolutely true.

Also, it's illogical to assert that a Supreme Being couldn't possibly be loving and Omnipotent, without simultaneously accepting the hypothetical existence of said God. That's a tautology that goes something like this: 'Something is false because it cannot be true.'