Theism (Christianity) vs Athiesm

“Once again my opponent misses the fatal flaw of his arguments. Just because someone cannot know everything for a 100% certainity, that does not necessarily mean that we have no knowledge.” Obviously it does mean that. If you could be wrong about everything, you don't know anything. If I told you the speed limit of "Wood Road" was 50kph, but I could be wrong, then I don't know the speed limit… Just like when you say you could be wrong about everything, you don't know anything! Read that again and think about it. Thank you. This is key: If you don’t know anything, how do you know about a flaw in my argument?? “You mentioned that truth is true reguardless of perception, so what you perceive should not affect objective truth. In that case, how do you trust your biased perception when you perceived the so called 'revelation'? How do you know it was not hallucination, or the placebo effect, or the countless other rational explanations?” You first conceded that you could be wrong about everything, which means you don't know anything. So if you don't know anything, how do you know that I could be wrong?? You said “…nothing can be known for 100%” and I asked if you were 100% certain about that. “I never said I knew that for a 100%.” Then why did you say it… Why are we debating about things you don't know… Thing is… when you say you know nothing to 100% certainty, you can have no objection to what I claim to know for certain, because you could be wrong about your objection! I said: “You can’t even know your senses are valid without God. Tell me - how do you know your senses are valid? You can’t.” "That's exactly what my spoon and fork example was trying to showcase, Pro completely missed my point. How does Pro know his senses were valid when getting his revelation from god?" That’s a Tu quoque fallacy. I asked how you know your senses are valid. Answer still is, you can’t know your senses are valid. That’s a problem. You use your senses to assess the validity of your senses. That’s a vicious circle. You can’t turn that back on me, because you don't know anything. (Since you “could be wrong” about everything.) "I have yet to receieve a revelation from the Christian God. I don't know that he exists…” Yes you do. You might be suppressing the knowledge in your sin, but that doesn't change anything. "There are far more logical explanations for your inner revelation, the placebo effect for example." You’ve conceded that you could be wrong about everything - so you can’t know for certain what I can know. Yet you just told me what I can/can’t know. Big problem. Why doesn't Pro believe in the Quranic God revealed in the Quran/Koran? Why doesn't Pro belive in the Hindu Gods revealed in all the ancient sanskrit literature? Why this special preference to the Christian God? Because He’s the only one that exists, and you know it. By the way, why are you dancing around other religions? Defend your own atheistic worldview. And again, you can’t know what I can/can’t know if you don't know anything. I want you to get this - Almost your entire argument is telling me the limits of what I can apparently know. But you can’t know what I can/can’t know, because you said you could be wrong about everything - therefore you could be wrong about your objection! So you can't tell me what I can know. I said: You can’t know anything to be objectively true without God.” "How do you know that to be objectively true?" You demonstrated it yourself. You said you could be wrong about everything, so you don't know anything. Whereas I have God, so I can know things to be objectively true. And you can’t object to that if you know nothing. You can’t know that “I could be wrong” if you know nothing. I asked: “How do you know your senses are valid?” "The same can be asked of you (which is what I was essentially doing in previous rounds and this one)." Blatant Tu quoque fallacy. I asked you. Again, if you could be wrong about everything/know nothing, how do you know that my senses could be invalid?? I know mine are valid because it was revealed to me by God. And you can’t object to that if you know nothing/could be wrong about everything. I asked: “What is your objection to my claim to knowledge that God exists? "The lack of scientific evidence to back up that claim, and the pressence of fallacious reasoning to support the claim." Evidence presupposes objective truth. Objective truth presupposes God. (You can’t know anything to be objectively true.)-I think the discerning reader will not miss my point, which is: If you don't know anything for certain, you cannot know what I can know. Not only did you seem to miss my point so far, which is crucial, but you've also used the Tu Quoque fallacy a number of times!I can no longer respond to your statements, but I sincerely hope you didn't miss my crucial point.The voter/s will without doubt be biased toward their worldview, so the "winner" title of this debate means nothing.