You can't convince me that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

For this round of the debate, I will focus on dispelling few objections to my earlier argument. 1. My opponent has pointed out that his behavior will under a mind altering effect does not represent his normal behavior. It is true that this may not be an accurate reflection of his ideas. However, all that was necessary was that he be convinced. Though it is impossible to know exactly how he would react, I expect the continued use of various mind-altering substances would eventually produce the desired result, given enough persistence. 2. My opponent argues a divine intervention could alter this outcome. Given the existence of God, it would be possible for a divine intervention to alter anything. It is for this exact reason that I consider this argument invalid. A divine intervention could alter anything. Suppose I had argued this: 1. A implies B 2. A 3. B My opponent could argue that this is invalid, a divine intervention could cause A to imply C. It is impossible to know if God would allow anything. This does not prevent us from using any kind of reasoning just because God may intervene. 3. It was never given that God exists. My opponent cannot argue from the assumption that God exists. I am making no attempt here to prove that God exists, but unless my opponent can show that it is given or at least highly probable than it is not logical to use God as the foundation for an argument. 4. My proposition was backed by probability. Given the number of mind altering chemicals in existence, it is probable that at least one of them could put my opponent in such a mental state that he could be convinced that God does not exist. My opponent attempts to refute this with arguments that are based on uncertainty. We don't know for sure whether or not God would intervene, but we do know it is probable that the drugs would work. Considering the number of non-believers I think we can agree that statistically speaking the chances that God would intervene are not very high. Thus, even allowing for uncertainly, my argument is far more probably than my opponents. 5. My opponent stated that in an unaltered state of mind, convincing him would be impossible. I find this rather unlikely. To quote Orwell's 1984, "Men are infinitely malleable. " Even without the use of drugs it is possible that such an argument exists that would convince my opponent otherwise. Unless he can show that his mind is neurologically incapable of being changed I will maintain that such an argument exists. I don't know what it would be. If we /are/ using divine intervention as an argument, than perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster could whisper it into my ear. But it doesn't matter because if such an argument exists, it is likely that I would eventually come up with it as there is no time constraint. Conclusion: In light of all this, I think it is safe to say that under some circumstances, I possess the ability render my opponent convinced that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. His arguments do not refute this possibility but rather attempt to cloud it with uncertainty. The basis of this proposed uncertainty is rather unjustified. I see no reason for anyone to believe that it is not possible for me to convince my opponent that God does not exist.