The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

I am sincerely glad The Fool™ filled his final round with lots of thoughtful contentions. I do believe Round 5 will be the most enjoyable for our readers. P1. This is a logical argument. Fallacy: Violates Law of Identity. P1 adheres to the Law of Identity. It merely describes what this argument is: it uses logic rather than science, morality, etc. Therefore, Pro cannot logically reject this premise. P2. Pro must use logical laws to refute a logical argument. Fallacy: Self Refuting. This premise is true so long as my argument uses only logic to make its case. The Fool™ uses logical laws to argue that logical laws need not be used. He says an argument may be "self-refuting or simply not logical to begin with. " The only way to determine if an argument is not logical is to show that they violate logical laws. P3. In order for the refutation to be objectively true, logical laws must be abstract, invariant, and universal. Admittedly, this is a big premise. This is where I expected a lot of debate to occur, but that didn't happen until late into the game. As Pro rightly points out, to be objective means to be true regardless of what people believe. By reduction ad absurdum, we can determine the necessary qualities of logic. Invariant: If the laws of logic can change, then a refutation might be true one day and false later. Thus, the refutation cannot be considered to be objectively true unless logic is invariant. Universal: If the laws of logic do not apply to all rational beings in all places, then a refutation can be true in the Milky Way Galaxy and false in the Andromeda Galaxy. Thus, the refutation cannot be considered to be objectively true unless logic is universal. Abstract: This quality is derived from the previous two, as the only things that are truly universal and invariant are abstract entities, such as numbers. I will have to refine my argument in the future to separate this particular attribute into its own premise, but that doesn't change the fact that there is rational support for it. Minimally, I have provided more rationale for this quality than Pro has offered for logic being concrete. Logical laws cease to be laws when any of these qualities are denied, as doing so leads to absurdity. Let's looks at Pro's four contentions: Scope Fallacy. Abstracts occur in our minds, but it is fallacious to say that because our minds are subjective that everything we think about is subjective. If this were true, then Pro's arguments—having come from a subjective mind—must also not be objective, in which case his refutation is not objective. Refuted in P2. Bare Assertion Fallacy. Simply saying logical laws do need to be abstract or invariant is insufficient. Red Herring. Asserting that the laws of logics are "simply the relations of the universe" doesn't refute this premise's claim. What about this assertion proves they are not abstract, invariant, or universal? P4. Abstract entities are products of thought. Fallacy: False Analogy, Straw manA computer performs mathematical computations, but it does not follow that mathematical entities, such as numbers, are not abstract. In fact, it was the abstract notions of mathematics and logic that lead to the computer's design in the first place. The computer is the application of abstract entities, not concrete proof of their external nature. Pro also misrepresents this premise, which only argues that abstract entities are products of thought; the mind doesn't enter the picture until P5. Pro needs to show how abstract entities are not products of thought whatsoever, and at best, he argues that these things exist outside our minds. So what? This premise doesn't care about where abstract entities are in relation to our minds but where they ultimately originate. This premise is practically axiomatic in its truth, for the very definition of abstract entities is those things that are not concrete. Consider the inverse: if there is no thought, then there are no abstract entities. Just because abstract entities describe concrete things, it does not follow that they are concrete or can be accounted for concretely. Across the UniverseFallacy: Begging the QuestionThe question is: can Pro refute my argument that God exists? F-Universe, if it contains everything in existence, will necessarily contain God also—if He exists. It is not yet decided that F-Universe includes God. Therefore, the F-Universe term cannot be used to refute my argument until the debate is over. Transcendental GrenadeFallacy: Equivocation. Pro says I cannot use transcendental argumentation because I am not transcendent. The two uses of the term are not equivalent. The first use is a name given to a form of modal logic; the second use describes a being outside of nature. Logical SoldiersFallacy: Appeal to AuthorityAppealing to the conclusions of past thinkers' (no matter how respected) does nothing to refute my argument one way or another. Moreover, claiming they "created modern logic" is implies logic is made-up. Shall I do the same and just appeal to Christian thinkers for proof of the supernatural? Surely even The Fool™ would condemn me for such shenanigans. P5. Products of thought necessitate a mind. Fallacy: Double StandardI labeled Pro's I-think-therefore-I-am argument as a Red Herring in my previous round because he did not clarify what premise he was refuting. Now that it's clear he is refuting P5, I have upgraded the fallacy to a double standard. Pro says, "Consciousness is awareness. " About awareness he states, "Let my awareness be called thoughts and sensations. " How is this not another term to describe a "mind? " As Pro himself emphatically stated in Round 2, "I could define my computer as boot, but what was formally called computer remains the very same regardless of my definition. " Pro can't have it both ways. If one cannot turn a computer into a boot by calling it a boot, then one cannot refute the idea of a mind by simply calling it a set of "thoughts and sensations. "P6. In order for a mind to produce invariant and universal entities, it must also be invariant and universal. Pro offers three objections to this premise: Violates Law of Non-Contradiction. If there is an invariant mind, then by definition it does not vary. If it does so, then it's not invariant. Refuted in P3 Refuted in P4 P7. In order for a mind to be invariant and universal, it must be immaterial. Fallacy: Begging the Question. I already showed how any appeal to F-Universe begs the question. Premises P8 – P10Fallacy: Begging the Question. All of Pro's objections point back to F-Universe, which I refuted above. Furthermore, premises P8 – P10 are just substitutions of P1 – P7, so P8 – P10 are valid if P1 – P7 are valid. Pro's Last ArgumentsFallacy: Circular Reasoning. Pro's final two syllogisms focus on the idea that I can't provide an absolutely certain definition of God. I've exhaustively showed how this reasons in circles because debate requires we have a definition before we can move forward. To say I have to demonstrate the reality of God before I can even attempt to prove His existence is to render this and all debate meaningless. ConclusionIF my opponent doesn’t prove a 100% non-faith certain source for the reality of god. Con fails to provide a logical logic argument of the real God. Bop is on Con (beware of fake fallacy claims! )This is an attempt to move the goal-posts. As the title makes abundantly clear, The Fool™ must refute my argument. My burden is to defend it. Therefore, voters would be within reason to vote for me if they determine that my defenses were superior to his attacks.