God exists. You can't escape it. (TAG debate)

Intro I have no idea how Con thinks he refuted my argument when he did not even understand it. As for my TAG being applicable to Islam, the argument from the IC would apply to Islam as well. Islam, just like all worldviews contrary to CW, is internally inconsistent and refutes itself, thus impossible. If he wants to present Islam (or any other worldview) as an alternative to the CW, I'm willing to debate that as well.FallaciesI will let the readers be the judge of who's committing fallacies and who's dropping points.If Con wants to say that I can not claim absolute truth without first refuting every single position, then Con needs to stop appealing to universal absolute laws like LA and the uniformity of nature, until he has demonstrated them universally and absolutely true.Had Con read my posts carefully, he would've realized that my actual argument is that BOTH of us (and everyone else) have PRESUPPOSED worldviews. The only way to prove or refute a worldview is to INTERNALLY critique it and as I will summarize here in R5, the CW is internally coherent and comports with reality while Con's worldview (which he defends and maintains as the correct one out of all that he knows) is internally incoherent, inconsistent, arbitrary, and actually borrows from the CW for its foundation.MoralityCon, claims that I have "merely announced" that only CW can account for MA. Con seems to think that just because I can't critique all views of MA in 5 posts, that he refutes my assertion. I challenged him to present any view that refutes my claim, not name them. Con has not at all explained how his or the other views that he is presenting can account for MA and our knowledge of them. I'm not gonna do his work for him and waste characters on my posts. He just asserts that they can account for them. My argument is that MA is only possible if there is a universal, invariant, transcendental, authoritative, revealed, absolute standard. No atheistic view of morality can provide this. Con states that he believes MA exists, yet gave no explanation on what his actual basis is for MA and how he came to know them. I'll leave Con and the readers a question to demonstrate my argument; Why is rape absolutely wrong?The CW answer is ofcourse is because God according to His nature condemns it as evil. Con needs to give an answer that is not arbitrary (ie. because society says its wrong) or question begging (ie. because its WRONG to cause harm). We can not know what ought to be, from what is. Euthyphro Dilemma (note, already refuted)"Does God have control over His own nature? "The answer is no, just as God can't not exist. His nature is absolute and unchanging. There is no internal logical or rational problem here. God's existence and nature are absolute and necessary.EpistemologyCF"CF is only supposed to give epistemic justification for beliefs, either in terms of FB, or that which is built on FB. If I have satisfied this, then my role in providing an alternative to TAG is fulfilled."No. Throughout the debate Con's been giving false premises, claiming that if he proves that they're correct then he wins the debate. How is justifying for beliefs provide an alternative to TAG? What Con needs to justify is his belief in FB not beliefs that are based on FB.The whole debate is about how Con's worldview and all others contrary to CW can not provide the necessary precondtions for intelligiblity. FB according to founationalism, are not justified at all, thus "foundational". They are self-evident (presupposed). Well then I might as well end the debate by saying that God is self-evident (Which is actually my position). But you see, that's not how debates work. We both have to critique each others points to actually make an argument for these alleged self-evident truths.Con presents CF as if it's not controversial like theism, but Con knows it has unanswered criticisms.He didn't even respond to any the problems I presented, here's more:http://www.theoryofknowledge.info...http://www.theoryofknowledge.info...http://www.theoryofknowledge.info...REAgain, in RE evidences should affirm revealed truths. If by evidentialism, you mean human interpretations of human observations as the ULTIMATE basis for truth, then OF COURSE RE denies that! Man is not infallible, God is. His revelations can NOT be wrong, while man is proven to always err. Belief in God's infallible revelations are rational, while belief in man's limited conflicting knowledge as ultimate authrority isn't. The Bible is not a false authority with in CW. Unbelief AFFIRMS the revealed truths in the Bibe. You can't internally critique a view and reject its claims or assume from the beggining that it's false. LAAgain, when did I assert that LA could be false? Con yet again misrepresented me. The LA argument is that while Con and I both assume LA, Con does not have a rational basis for it, in fact he did not even try providing one. The CW however accounts for LA and our knowledge of it. God's mind is the ground for it and He also revealed and made it plain to us, our limited experience affirms it."But even God’s mind must be what it is and not something else, and is therefore subject to law of identity and the LNC. Another example is that God's mind either exists or doesn't exist, but cannot simultaneously exist AND not exist, thus obeying the LNC."Again, God's very existence and nature is absolute. The fact that God exists and can't not exists, and the fact that his mind is absolute and unchanging, GROUNDS LA. God's very existence is the necessary precondition for LA. Like good and evil, LA are dependent on God's very existence.Uniformity of Nature Strawson misses the point. The problem is having no rational basis for the uniformity of nature and induction completely destroys knowledge. His argument proves this by saying that we can not be sure of anything if we deny induction or the uniformity of nature."If anyone really thinks past events tell us nothing with regards to all that follows, then they would (if they were consistent) have no qualms about jumping out of a 50-storey building."This is Con's solution for the problem of induction? Con's argument is basically, everyone believes in induction! That's begging the question, and that's exactly what's so profound, that although past events are not a rational basis for induction, everyone uses it and assumes the uniformity of nature. This shows that everyone is dependent on God's power and revelation to keep nature uniform.Con after 4 rounds could not provide a rational basis for the uniformity of nature and induction.ConclusionAlthough Con refused to respond to most of my questions and challenges, I hope the readers and Con himself can see that Con's worldview could not provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, thus can't provide a rational basis for his argument. Con had to borrow the truths of CW to argue against it, showing how he might be able to suppress the truths of God, but HE CAN'T ESCAPE IT! He is made in the image of God regardless of his rejection of God. He knows God but he refuses to acknowledge Him. He has an obligation to submit to His creator but instead he rebels against Him."For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man"Romans 1:21-23 Unitedandy, As I've said before, the problem here is your rebellion against God and your refusal to submit to His authrority. Instead of honoring Him as God, you set yourself up as your own god, and your own mind as ultimate justifier of all truths. You are standing on your own head to keep from drowning instead of setting your feet on the solid ground of God. You must humble yourself and turn to Christ, the truth, the way and the light.