We cannot know reality without the Christian God

"Philosophy does not address what makes thinking possible." I know this is a back to school thing but one of the branches of philosophy is epistemology. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. Epistemology studies what knowledge is, how we acquire it, and what makes us capable of knowing. As you can see, the statement of Pro is absolutely false."Logical Positivism does not express What gives us Capacity to use Logical Positivism; and therefor does not express How we can know something without God."False. Logical positivism states that we can know by making empirical experiments. And as you know, God cannot be empirically proved because, supposing he exists, he is not physical, so you can't make an empirical proof of god. "Logical Positivism does not disprove God,"I'm not trying to disprove god, that is not the topic of this debate. What I'm proposing here is that god is not necessary to know, thus if god did not exist, we could still know reality. "Pragmatism: = ProphecyDoes not express What enables us to use Pragmatism ~ How we know things"False again. Pragmatism expresses that we know reality by comparing which piece of knowledge has better capacities of explaining and predicting phenomena. If you compare theories that argue in favour of god with atheist theories you will see the later are better at explaining and predicting phenomena. If we guided our knowledge by Christianity, we would still think that the earth is plane and that we are the center of the universe, thus we would be far from knowing reality."Rationalism:This did not express HOW we are capable of using reason. It simply states that you must use reason in order to Know something, and so you can prophecy, and come to conclusions without observation. Fact."Read my last argument carefully: "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."It expresses how we are capable of knowing, it says that we know by deducting or by intuiting. And this again is part of human nature, not something given by god."These three philosophies however true, do not explain How we are Capable of intelligence. But only express what intelligence is" I've already proved you are wrong by saying this. The three explain how we are capable of knowing and how we know."Empiricism does not explain WHY you can feel, or why you can think. However knowledge does only come from the senses Intellect does not."I recommend you to read Hume, just to have a little grasp of empiricism. Feeling and thinking is part of human nature, we evolved in a way we are now capable of feeling and thinking. Empiricism does not say that all knowledge comes from senses, but that the ultimate source of knowledge is our senses. We can know by feeling (impressions) or by reasoning about what we have felt(ideas)."The idea that only your mind exists IS literally delusional"According to you. You don't give any evidence supporting this. " Knowledge However can only be true or it is not knowledge"False. This is a rather antique vision of knowing. In the past, logicians talked about two values of truth: true or false. However this is outdated. Nowadays, logicians talk about multiple values of truth: the degree of truth depends on the probability of the sentences being true. Then, knowledge can be partially true and still be knowledge."However, there is no indication that God is not a requirement for this capacity to be present here( in constructivism)"But there is no indication that god is a requirement either. God:Omnipotent: god cannot be omnipotent. Remember the paradox? Can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? If you say yes, then god is not omnipotent because he can't lift that rock. If you say no, then god is not omnipotent because he can't create that rock. Ergo, god cannot be omnipotent.All knowing and All loving: god cannot be both things. If he know everything, then why doesn't he apply his loving characteristic and solve the problems of everyone? If god is so loving, why is he letting people suffer? He doesn't have the excuse of not knowing what people suffer because he is all knowing. So, he is all knowing and evil or not all knowing but all loving. Wrathful and all loving: again, he can't be both. If he is all loving he can't be positive about destroying living things.As you can observe now, the Christian god cannot exist, because nothing with such contradicted characteristics can exists."These are the universal qualities of God which have been presented as the Nature of God in all cultures, eras and religions world wide. I am not talking about god, God." We are talking about the Christian god. If you want to defend that we need some god(not the Christian) to know, then do it in other debate. " God is thus;Physics, Matter, Philosophy/theory, the laws of nature and morals, And all other aspects of reality."Tell me, how you prove this? Pro is not giving any evidence, proof or argument to support this statement. Then, it's invalid."Only selfish bigots, perverts, insolent brats, pompous fools, inconsiderate morons (moron meaning.. Google it. LOL), Spiteful mopes, and undignified shrewds Have ever denied God and not seen the wisdom in it, or lacked the efforts necessary to comprehend it. "Now Pro proceeds to insult and attack people who don't believe in god. This doesn't provide anything to the debate."BUT, Because God is defined as the Nature of Reality, and all that which supports it and is in effect the result of all actions, as well as being the prosperous ideology and imaginary concepts to ensue. GOD, which IS That God of Christianity IS Necessary to KNOW anything."Again, just empty preaching. Pro gives no proof to support this. He is just saying "God is necessary to know because he is great". In the same manner I could have said "God is not necessary to know because I just talked to him and he said so". How could I prove that? I can't prove that in any way. The same applies with Pro's argument.Pro then proceeds to express more empty preaching. I encourage him to give proof of what he says next time.ConclusionSo far in this debate, Pro did not post any argument defending his point. He instead gave some preaching about what god is, but without giving any proof or solid reasoning. Pro contention until now is that god is everything, thus god is knowledge, thus we need god to know. How he proves this? He does not prove anything. On the other hand, I gave several ways of knowing reality that do not require the existences of a god. Summarizing, there's no conclusive evidence supporting the necessity of god for knowing, but there is supporting the unnecessity. Ergo, the resolution is negated.