That Strong Atheism is Unreasonable

I thank the opposition for his speedy response.==Framework==The con states that no one is truing to prove there is a 100%- even though this is pretty much the underlying idea of this debate. I refer him back to the first round, when it was stated strong atheism meant that someone is 100% certain that there is no God. This definition (along with unreasonable) was accepted upon the acceptance of this debate. Furthermore, my C2 and C3 arguments remain untouched. My opponent states he refuted them all at the same time, though he says nothing about absence of evidence or metaphysics. Thus, there two points remain dropped by my opponent. My first contention is touched only by the assertion that they are based on empiricism, which isn't technically a rebuttal (refuted later in the round.)Third, the con ignores the fact that he has repeatedly broken conduct. I tell this not because I would like a free point, but rather to show my opponent has violated the rules and conduct of the debate. I would like to provide the voters with all the tools necessary to reach the right conclusion. Breaking the debate format also given an unfair edge to one of the debaters, as posting in the first round gives con three rounds to refute, but gives me only two. And, last, he states all my sources are irrelevant. This is false, as all of my sources correlate with what I am saying. My opponent takes the immature path and states a lot of unrelated sources- which pretty much contradicts himself. He has no right to say my sources are pointless, as he has not posted any sources correlating to his argument either.==Empiricism== Since empiricism seems to be a hot topic in this debate, allow me to address it first. My opponent is arguing on the basis that empiricism is completely wrong, even though there is a debate about whether empiricism is better than rationalism. For example, how could you know what the color blue looks like if you were born blind? You can't. My opponent has failed to show why empiricism is so bad here.Con has also failed to show how my ideas were based on empiricism, but continues to claim that they are. Saying one's arguments are based off of empiricism is not a proper rebuttal. There's a whole debate about whether empiricism or rationalism is correct, so he can not formulate his empiricism "arguments" on the assumption that Empiricism is incorrect.Continuing on, Empiricism has been used by many scholars in the argument of God, such as Berkeley, Hume, and Locke. Following is a thought from Berkeley:"According to this view, there is nothing which our understanding cannot grasp, and our perceptions can be regarded as a kind of divine language by which God speaks to us; for God is the cause of our perceptions [1]."===================================================================Certainty and Paradoxes==My opponent starts off by saying that I have not refuted the error of my position. I am trying to prove (as best I can) that there is no 100%, and thus God's existence is unreasonable. I do not refute myself, as I never said I was trying to prove my argument to 100%, just to the fullest extent possible. He then says I'm using rationalism in my arguments, but earlier, he says I was using empiricism. If I'm using both to support my point, then that just further supports my BoP.Furthermore, my opponent restates his omnipotent argument, yet it was refuted by me in the third round. I stated God can do things within his nature, which, truthfully, is just another definition of omnipotent. Theissen gave a better example of God's omnipotence:“God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections [2].”This point has been disproven twice now. Also, this is basically my opponent trying to disprove God, which isn't completely relevant to this debate. Instead of trying to prove there is no 100%, my opponent simply just tries to disprove God. He also states the Bible is not a good source. There are two errors with this statement:1) God was defined in the second round (first definition stated) as "the God from the Bible."2) The assertion that God is omnipotent was taken from the Bible. By saying the Bible is not a reliable source, he refutes his omnipotence argument.===================================================================Further "proof" arguments==My opponent states you can not prove something, but you can disprove something. However, God has not been disproven or proven yet. Thus, it is illogical that one would be completely certain of God's existence. My opponent is using rationalism to attempt to show (for a 100%) that God does not exist. He even concedes that one can not prove something to a 100% certainty... meaning one can not prove God does not exist to a 100% certainty.He does, however, state that something can be refuted to a 100% certainty. The point here is that God has not been proven or disproven to a 100% certainty, so it is unreasonable to be absolutely certain that God does not exist. This point remains untouched by my opponent.To close, there is no proof, or even solid evidence, that God does not exist. Whatever way you look at it, completely believing that God does not exist is illogical.===================================================================CONCLUSION==In conclusion, my opponent has not even come close to reaching his BoP. All he has done is claim that I used empiricist arguments, and thus, they are illogical to this debate. He has not shown there is a 100% (using any strategy,) which he had to do to show that one can be justified in being certain that God does not exist.Even if he has shown there is a 100% (which he has not,) then one would need proof to come to a certain conclusion. As it was shown, there is no proof that God does not exist. Thus, we find that it is unreasonable to conclude (for a fact) that God does not exist. And since it has also been demonstrated that physics can not prove metaphysics (basis of God,) then the only way to know something for a fact regarding God's existence (or nonexistence) is by observation- or empiricism.Through these arguments, I have met my BoP better than the con. In fact, the con still neglects to even refute my second contention and third contention, though they are different ideas (one is based on metaphysics and physics, the other on absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) All of my opponent's first round arguments remain refuted. Also, the possibility of a fat guy who grants wishes to midgets is not even in the same area code as the possibility of God existing, so it isn't logical to put the two in the exact same spot.Also, you can't disprove this given fat guy. He may exist on a different planet, he may exist though no one has ever witnessed him, etc. I can be 99.9% certain this guy doesn't exist, but I can't disprove it, and neither can you. Below are reasons why I won each category of the voting section:Conduct: My opponent has broken the structure of the debate multiple times, which should result in a loss of conduct.Spelling and Grammar: My opponent's second round arguments have some obvious errors, such as some misspellings and grammar issues. I'm not going to get nitpicky, but I urge the voters to look at the con's second round arguments.Arguments: Stated above. Opponent has not even come close to his BoP in showing that it is reasonable to believe for a certainty that something, let alone God, exists. He has also dropped my second and third contentions, and my first one remains barely touched.Sources: I cite various sources, all somewhat related to what I am saying. My opponent cites zero sources whatsoever related to his arguments.I thank my opponent for a great debate, and I return the table to him for the last say in this debate.Sources:[1] http://mind.ucsd.edu...[2] Thiessen, Henry, Lectures in Systematic Theology. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 82.