Standards of Logic

Con displays the two methods of logic: inductive and deductive. I agree with how Con displayed them, but I disagree with Con's conclusion.Con: In conclusion, logic is very far from being absolute, because it doesn't give you access to absolute knowledge or whatsoever.Deductive logic leads to an absolute answer, so long as the premises are true and the argument is valid. This would be the description of a sound argument. My argument is saying, in an atheistic paradigm, absolutes cannot exist (see next paragraph). You have conceded to this, but you are assuming that atheists don't consider anything to be absolutely true. If an atheist concedes to this as you have, then deductive logic cannot be trusted, as it leads to absolute conclusions, so long as it is sound. Therefore, my point is made that atheists cannot even debate a theist if they concede that they cannot trust deductive arguments, which is the bulk of debates. Here is an example of why atheists cannot trust absolutes. In an atheistic paradigm, we are here by random chance and evolution. So, one of the laws of logic is the law of noncontradiction. A statement cannot be true and false at the same time. However, we believe this to be true because we have never seen a contradiction in this universe. But, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In an atheistic paradigm, they are making a quantum leap of faith to say that the law of non contradiction is true. Humans have an ability to see order in chaos, so it is possible we are misled to believing that logic is trustworhty, if atheism is true.In a theistic paradigm, we can trust that the universe is ordered, because it was created to be ordered.In an atheistic paradigm, the universe is technically not ordered. We may describe something as an orderly fashion, but it is all chance. It is what it is- not ordered. How can something that is a result of chaos trust that anything is orderly? This is a quantum leap of faith.There is no quantum leap of faith in a theistic paradigm. God exists, and created man to be rational. Yes, we may make mistakes at times, but this does not change that there is objective truth that can be known, versus an theistic paradigm were objective truth might not even exist.My opponent countered by moral argument by appealing to society and culture to determine ethics. My point went against this, though, as this reasoning would not allow us to argue that another society is committing error. No one can say that Nazi Germany was being morally wrong by murdering millions. That society determined that killing innocents was okay. But, if there is an objective moral standard that goes above society, then we can appeal to that and determine that certain societies and cultures are morally wrong. So, if there is no higher standard, a person cannot tell another person that it is wrong to believe God exists. There is no higher moral standard, so his opinion is irrelevant to the other person who resides in a theistic society. An atheist cannot trust deductive logic, nor can they tell someone else what they ought to believe. So if an atheist decides to debate a theist, to argue that the theist should not believe in God, he is using presuppositions only found in the theistic paradigm. Some of the things my opponent stated may be true. We cannot ultimately trust reason, and society determines morality. An atheist can accept these, and there is no inconsistency there. It is only when an atheist desires to debate a theist is when they commit inconsistencies. That is why I use this argument in a debate. So, this argument cannot be used if the atheist allows that it is possible God exists and is fine with people believing in whatever they want. If objective morals and deductive logic is trustworthy, then it is more than likely that God exists (this is inductive logic).If an atheist begins to debate a theist, he has conceded that it is more likely than not that God exists, which undermines his/her entire argument.I hope that, in my final round, I have shown why this argument is a successful one for debating atheists. It is not an argument that absolutely proves God exists, it is not an argument that says the theistic paradigm is more likely true than the atheistic paradigm, or that one is more true than the other. The entire point is that, only when an atheist desires to debate a theist, they have stepped onto presuppositions that only exist in a theistic paradigm.Thank you for the debate, Con, and I appreciate your objections so that I was able to critique my argument