Atheism is a LIE

I will respond in two parts. First of all I will briefly summarise the arguments against him. I will then rebut his R3 statement.HOWEVER I just want to stress two things first. 1) PRO has accepted that he has the BoP so I don't need to posit an alternative, just show that his claim is wrong. 2) He has argued based on a logical constructs built on top of one another so if any one piece of his argument is proved wrong then his whole point collapses. I don't need to prove everything he has stated or even the majority of what he's stated wrong. If I am right about even one aspect, his argument cannot be considered valid.Why his argument is wrong - Summary of point raised in R1 and R2Still 100% unsupported premisePRO's final conclusion is built upon the conclusions of each construct. Each construct conclusion is based on two premise. PRO has never offered affirmative support for his premises in any way, shape or form.He has argued why my points against them are wrong, but he has never offered a positive argument in the first place to show they are valid. If none of his premise have any evidence to support them the logical argument fails.His "lie" definition is wrong.Based on the most common and relevant definitions, to lie is to deliberately deceive. PRO's C1 P1 relies on an alternative and less pertinent definition. Using the most relevant definition, the premise is false and the argument falls apart.He proves atheists are liars, not that atheism is a lie which is the debate topicIn round 1, I actually assumed he was trying to prove that atheists are liars by claiming to know god exists despite this not being the debate title, simply because his argument in no way even attempts to prove that atheism as an ideology is a lie. However in R2 he confirmed this is what it is meant to prove.Construct 1 and 3 (if they were correct) claim to show that a) people who claim to know if god exists are liars because they cannot know this b) Atheists claim to know if god exists. All this indicates is that atheists are liars. it does not mean that the atheism as an ideology as a whole is wrong and a lie and that a god does exist. If he wanted to link the argument he made with the argument he was meant to make, he would need at least one more construct. Instead he has a leap of logic, violating his rule that "you be logical" and disproving his conclusion as valid.Via inductive reasoning it is possible to know if God exists.Based on the definitions, even putting aside the ones I argue against, all that is required to know that god exists is valid evidence - not 100% categorical proof. Reasoning counts as proof and inductive reasoning, which allows us to work from likelihood, provides evidence for the lack of God.We didn't know what caused gravity, electromagnetism, procreation, storms, the sun to rise in the morning, the planets to be formed, etc and a hundred million other things. It was possible that they were all due to god. By Pro's own admission there is no objective measure for what god is, so he could be responsible for anything and everything and each time we find that he isn't, this is another slight but incremental indication god doesn't exist. We can there inductively reason that it is unlikely god exists.This fulfills the definition of "evidence" which in turn lets us fulfill the definition of "knowing". It CAN therefore be claimed atheists know god exists.Pro's implicit admission C3 P2 is wrong.C3 Premise 2 states: "disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence." However this is not the definition PRO gave in R1 OR the redefinition I gave in the same round by me. Indeed in R2 PRO admits this and says "Disbelief is therefore hey rejection of a claim with or without evidence"His claim that "disbelief is based on a lack of evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence" is therefore incorrect by his own admission, invalidating the conclusion.Supernatural atheistSince it is theoretically possible that a atheist could have supernatural powers, PRO's C1P1 statement cannot be categorically 100% true. He can still make the same reasoning using slightly different inductive logic (e.g. based on all available knowledge it is very likely that no-one can know if god exists) but doing so legitimises my own inductive logic argument. Either way, his argument is shown as wrong.Rebuttals In fact it was just the top result on GoogleNo you wasn't, I've cross referenced your claim and yet again it's wrong. Proof in source. [1]Con says my definition of Lie is incompatible but does not provide ANY argument for why.A number list of points was included in R1 and further arguments were in R2. Pro does not address them.(evidence for lack of god) How does Con know this?As stated a little below the bit quoted: "This is a summary of the latter part of my R1 argument, which you have not addressed and which meets all definitions you provided."Therefore how I know it is specifically shown and you do not reference my arguments, instead constructing a strawman. This explanation which I gave in the very first round, pointed out to you last round and which you have still not addressed also answers your later question "What kind of evidence (not already presented) would lead us to believe God existed ?""As mentioned before, Atheism can only be 1 of 2 things. a Lie, or Ignorance."Which was based on a false premise. You used my statements to back this up, treating it as an admission on my part in R2 and have nothing else which supports it. But my statement was merely a couple of examples, not an exhaustive list, and therefore me making that statement does not support this conclusion.Supernatural atheistPRO misrepresents my argument from the start. He states: "Con demands that I believe his supernatural atheist not only exists, but is in the same scope of relevance with the notion of God"However this is not the case. What I asked is whether he could prove he doesn't exist and posited that either a) he wouldn't be able to, meaning C1P1 is incorrect or b) he would have to do so using inductive reasoned, legitimising my inductively reasoned argument that god doesn't exist.His point is therefore irrelevant.He then tries to make a claim using Kalam's constant on the premise that "God is the creator of all things." and not seeming to take into account that this is a MASSIVE assumptions to make and he hasn't offered proof.Kalam Cosmological Argument This a deductive argument rather than an inductive argument IF the premise are true. You have not offered any argument that they are and we actually know they aren't.Not only that, but as Hawking has stated "It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang."[1] The linkage of space and time in space-time means that cause and effect do not work without the universe, which doesn;t need a cause.Now people a thousand years ago didn't know that, but they also didn't catergorically know that everything has a cause either. They were inferring is based on the fact that everything they knew about merely pointed towards that being true (even though they were actually wrong).The proper inductively reasoned formulation would be:We are aware of causes for most things that existThe universe seems to existTherefore:It is likely the universe has a causeOnce again when you take away your unsupported assumptions, you are forced to use inductive reasoning. If inductive reasoning is valid, my R1 rationale based on this stands. If not, his argument is incorrect as he cannot support his premise anyway.[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...