We cannot know reality without the Christian God

"Apologies, I do not feel compelled to make remarks concerning my opponents arguments:"As you can see, my opponent starts with a demonstration of arrogance and unwillingness towards this debate. "Empiricism is nonsense, because it suggests reality has no bearings without a witness"This is not an argument but a simple statement without reasoning. Scientific theories are based upon the fact that reality has no bearings without a witness, and the significance of the observer. So empiricism is still valid. "Solipsism is the idea that there is no reality but the mind, which is also delusional BUT clearly suggests God as the Only valid option"Firstly, Pro gives no explanation why the idea that there is no reality but the mind is delusional. Secondly, is non sequitur to say that solipsism means the only valid option is god. If the only thing which exists is your mind then god does not exist or you are god. The most logical is the former. So solipsism is also still valid. "Constructivism refutes the fact that rue knowledge is based on facts and is not fabricated"This is just a confirmation of what constructivism is, so at least Pro did read my argument. No rebuttals here, so constructivism is still valid. " I feel as though my opponent is trying to make a joke of everyone else by pretending that he is opposed to God. "Now Pro proceeds to attack me and underestimate me. This provides nothing to the debate and should be taken into account for the conduct point. "Just because you cannot personally perceive something doesn't mean that it is unperceivable. Moreover, just because you have not perceived something does not mean that it is not perceivable. as we discussed"I never said that. However this is not a proof of the existence of god. If this proves god, then this also proves the existence of unicorns, aliens, all the god that people talk about, monsters, ghosts, imaginary friends, whatever you can imagine. I mean, just because you cannot personally perceive unicorns doesn't mean that unicorns don't exist, unicorn actually exist. This is the reasoning of Pro, as you can see absurd. "So, Creation is a scientific fact. The third day of creation is scientifically provable and proven. There is a troll host on the internet, and a womanizer host in the population and government that prevent it from circulating as it would impair a man's ability to seduce prostitutes and harlots and hire prostitutes, However~ when the planet expanded on the third day of creation it left a geological mark. Prior to light was matter, and when the matter had accumulated in a ball with the least dense matter enveloping it, the perfect conditiona rose for Light/electricity to stir and it did ~what? = It took the path of least resistance, while clinging to matter, molecularized the sky and ocean and then went into the earth. "This is just pure chatter. All of what is stated here does not have a logical argument nor a scientific base, just pure chatter. Obviously, invalid. "The eggs were created for all egged things by drawing on the immediate premises to establish DNA that was ascociable with this holistic entity that was the newly born earth etc. .. Then ont he 6th day animals were Fully developed formt his r" This is the same as the previous one, just chatter without a logical argument. In this one Pro doesn't even finishes the idea, I can't imagine what would have he written after the "r", but I don't think that single word would justify all the others. Conclusion of the rebuttals:Con did not made any reasoned rebuttal to my arguments. He then tried to prove the existence of god which isn't the debate's resolution (actually the resolution is We cannot know reality without the Christian God). Anyway, He couldn't give a logical argument to defend this stance. So, Pro couldn't prove his point and I could give valid arguments against his point. Thus, the resolution was negated. However, I will give some more arguments against the resolution, just to give even more strength to my point. RationalismProposes that the center of the knowing process is the reason. This stance says that we can get new knowledge by intuition or deduction. Deduction is when we link previous intuitions with logical arguments. Intuition is an a priori knowledge. This intuitions are part of our DNA, part of the human nature. So here you have another way of knowing reality without the necessity of god. PragmatismThis philosophical tradition argues that knowledge is a tool, and that truth must be evaluated by how well it can predict phenomena. As far as I know, you don't need god to predict phenomena, just some maths and physics. So there's another way of knowing reality without god. Logical positivismThis philosophy believes that the only cognitively meaningful statements are the ones which can be empirically verified. My knowledge of reality(which did not need god) can be verified empirically, what I perceive as reality is what others perceive, so there you have your verification. This theory does not only directly prove my point, but also proves the non existence of god. God can't be empirically verified, so god does not exist. Final conclusionI gave plenty of different arguments that negate the resolution. On the other hand, Pro did not give any valid argument to support the resolution.