Theism (Christianity) vs Athiesm

It is clear to me that my opponent will not agree with me on this simple point of logic, that it is possible to have false information, believe in that false information and therefore know that false information to be true. People in the past knew that thunderstorms were a sign from God, now we know that it is a naturally occuring phenomena occuring on many planets outside our own. Some people know that Jesus is their lord, others know that Allah is, others know that the Hindu gods are.There have been anecdotal evidence from every major religion claiming that their god (godess) revealed themselves to them. Thing is… when you say you know nothing to 100% certainty, you can have no objection to what I claim to know for certain, because you could be wrong about your objection!Just because there is a NEGLIGIBLE chance that I say something wrong, its unreasonable to assume that I am definitely wrong. Of course, that which applies to me, also applies to Pro as well since he is not some super natural entity. "That's exactly what my spoon and fork example was trying to showcase, Pro completely missed my point. How does Pro know his senses were valid when getting his revelation from god?" That’s a Tu quoque fallacy. I asked how you know your senses are valid. Answer still is, you can’t know your senses are valid. That’s a problem. You use your senses to assess the validity of your senses. That’s a vicious circle. Its not a fallacy at all, I simply showed in the spoon and fork example that it is possible for human senses to be invalid (which applies to me AND Pro). However, this does not mean that any and all senses are invalid.You can’t turn that back on me, because you don't know anything. (Since you “could be wrong” about everything.)Pro can also be wrong about everything, its just that he does not admit it. That's the only basis Pro's entire defense is on. Meanwhile, Pro's entire offense is based on the very limited anecdotal evidence which is extremely subject to Pro's initial strong held beliefs, not only that, Pro's andecdote has not been scientifically evaluated. Also consider the fact that there is definitely contradictory anecdotal evidence that, in Pro's mind, could prove that a completely different God with completely different divine laws and belief system is true. "I have yet to receieve a revelation from the Christian God. I don't know that he exists…” Yes you do. You might be suppressing the knowledge in your sin, but that doesn't change anything. Once again, my opponent has no ability to claim what I know or do not know and he cannot claim that I am 'suppressing knowledge in my sin' which makes absolutely no sense. Because He[Christian God] the only one that exists, and you know it. By the way, why are you dancing around other religions? Defend your own atheistic worldview. And again, you can’t know what I can/can’t know if you don't know anything. My opponent has given very little evidence to show that his God exists, and has shown no counter evidence to any other major religion being false. With that, he cannot claim that the Christian God is the ONLY god that exists with full certainity.I bring in other religions to put things into persepective by Pro. The atheistic worldview, i.e. the notion that there is likely no god and hence has no reason to believe in one, is not something that needs to be defended as it is the default position unless sufficient evidence to present the case that God does exist. If a person is raised without any exposure to religion, that person would fit into an atheistic worldview, simply because it is the default. Pro must realize that it is up to him to make claims about Christianity and defend them with evidence, which he has failed to do.I want you to get this - Almost your entire argument is telling me the limits of what I can apparently know. But you can’t know what I can/can’t know, because you said you could be wrong about everything - therefore you could be wrong about your objection! I could be wrong about my objection, but that does not mean that it must be treated as 100% wrong. The voters will decide whether my objections are right or wrong based on what is written here and the facts.I know [my senses] are valid because it was revealed to me by God. And you can’t object to that if you know nothing/could be wrong about everything. The possibility of being wrong about everything does not necessarily presuppose knowing nothing. I am sick of saying this again and again. Also, I didn't just apply this to myself, I applied it to all humans, since the viewpoint is a philosophically sound position. Now, back to the revelation, so apparently what I get from Pro's argument is this:One day (or night) God supposedly revealed himself (and the CHRISTIAN god at that, wonder which denomination got it right, the Orthodox?) to Pro and also told him specifically that his senses are valid. Once again, I ask: How do we know that Pro nad fully functioning senses during the day of the revelation? We can't, which is why annecdotal evidence is not a good way of determining truth, not in the Criminal courts, not in the scientific community and just not a good way of knowing something for sure in general.Objective truth presupposes God. (You can’t know anything to be objectively true.) No. Just no. According to Pro, if this universe was created naturally and not through God, that means that it is impossible to know that Oxygen exists since objective truth presupposes God according to him.How can Pro even make the claim that God is required to have such a thing as objective truth? The voter/s will without doubt be biased toward their worldview, so the "winner" title of this debate means nothing.I wonder why my opponent says this? I interpret this as a concession, simply because Christians outnumber atheists 2:1 and Religious people outnumber the irreligious 6:1. Pro can rest assured that if any biased votes come, they are statistically more likely to be in his favor.I hope the readers see the fallacious reasoning to prevent any of my arguments from being valid, by making the magical claim that I know nothing because there is a chance that I (like all humans) could be wrong about everything we know. I also hope the readers recognize that Pro has given very insufficient evidence to Prove God and has not fulfilled his Burden of Proof. ------x-----Footnote-----x-----As an interesting experiment, it would be nice if any and all voters would state their religion or lack thereof when voting.