Does God Exist? Theism and Biblical Faith vs. Atheism and Agnosticism

I'd like to begin like my opponent ended - talking about faith. My opponent has asserted that athiesm takes faith. Strictly speaking that's not true. Not having faith is not technically a form of faith - an athiest COULD literally (hypothetically) believe in nothing at all. Having said that, I wouldn't recommend to athiests that they abandon faith altogether. It's not a matter of whether we have faith or not - it's a question of what we have faith in. I have faith, for instance, that my money in the bank will be safe. It's quite different from a belief in God because for God we have no evidence, for the money being safe in the bank we do. And that would be to ignore the logical impossibility of God's existance. This is why athiests are selective about their faith. It's worth noting that thiests are selective about their faiths too - they choose one religion in favor of another religion, one God in favor of another etc. Faith is not an absolute even in a thiestic worldview - that's the basis for the old cliche athiest saying "I just believe in one less God than you do."I'm going to agree certainty is not a necessary standard, but it's nonetheless a standard I have met. The alternative my opponent proposes is an impossible alternative. My opponent's arguments - even the ones he copy-and-pasted, both in this round and the previous round - are invalid because they fall to my "Back to Reality" argument from round two, that I'm still waiting for a response on. They ALL presuppose an attribute of God. The real ironic thing about this whole uncertainty case is that the people who argue you can't KNOW if God exists or not are called "Agnostics" in philosophy, which is one of the positions my opponent is supposed to be arguing against under the resolution. Instead he's embraced theistic agnosticism, thus conceeding the debate.Origin of the UniverseLike my opponent I agree that just because there are alternatives to the God hypothesis does not invalidate the God hypothesis. What I'm arguing is that the God hypothesis is no more or less likely than any other hypothesis for the creation of the universe, if it is a hypothesis at all. I'll deal with that part in the section labelled "Omnipotence Paradox" below.My opponent's arguments from Alvin Plantinga are based on what the most "reasonable" assumptions are for the creation of the universe. By the philosopher's own admission, this is based on experience. However, you will recall that I already showed last round that experience is totally meaningless when it comes to the origin of the universe, since nobody has ever experienced anything beyond the universe (or any universe, for all we know). You will recall that I've already agreed the universe had a beginning (so I don't know why you spent three paragraphs justifying it), but I've disagreed that God must be the cause. I've given good reasons why in the previous two rounds, so bastardising Plantinga's work will not be enough to answer my contention.Objective MoralityMy opponent seems to think that if he puts his exact same argument from last round into bullet points, it will magically become more correct. It's just a rehash of the same case that I dealt with in the last round, and my opponent continues to fail to respond to. If you want to read my counter-arguments to his bullet points, read round three.Omnipotence ParadoxI'm glad to see that my opponent has made some attempt to answer this problem. My opponent agrees that God cannot do things that are logically impossible, and thus that there are things God cannot do, making him not all-powerful as he is limited by logic, meaning logic must be more powerful than God. It is therefore valid to logically deduce that my opponent agrees God is not all-powerful, which contradicts his earlier narrative that God is all-powerful. In other words, he admits the notion of something as "the greatest concievable being" (as he defined God in round one) is internally self-contradictory, because the greatest concievable being is all-powerful.My opponent has dismissed the entire notion of God he so feverantly wanted to defend in round one, and yet claims to have strengthened his faith. This is a conflict in my opponent's case - and his beliefs - that I hope he will resolve.ConclusionMy opponent continues to be unable to answer my case against his case. His only refutation of my case was to abandon God. His own case has been entirely repetitive, particulary his case for objective morality. He has conceeded agnosticism. He has still not dealt with any of my specific responses to his case. Therefore he has still failed to defend the motion.I look forward to summarising my case next round.