Theism (Christianity) vs Athiesm

you’ve just said you could be wrong about everything you think you know – “I could be wrong about… or everything I think I know.”It then follows that you know nothing, just like my height and the speed limit. The logic used here is very flawed. According to Pro's logic, since I said that I could be wrong about nothing, I therefore know everything. Isn't that the same logic pro used in his point?Pro's entire argument assumes a very false premise/assumption. That is, since someone could be wrong about something that is known, that person cannot know it. This is a very faulty line of reasoning. Nobody truly knows anything for 100% certain unless it has something to do with definitions, for example everybody knows for 100% that Homosexual males are not attracted to females. But that fact is only 100% because of the definitions of words. Other than that, nothing can be known for a 100%. There is a small chance that my username is not 'Theunkown' and I have been hallucinating all this time. But the chance of that (based on evidence of me and friends seeing this account) make me near certain that this account and the username is accurate. Though not 100%, just 99.99999.....%, but the probablity that my username is not 'Theunkown' is soo small that I might as well spend my time on this website knowing for sure that my username is 'Theunkown'.Let me give another example. If I see a fork, but I forget to put on my glasses and assume it is a spoon and think it is a spoon, then it I have the specific knowledge that the object in front of me is a spoon. It may be objectively false knowledge based off of faulty observations, but it is still knowledge because I know for 99.99999% certainity that it is a spoon but to me, subjectively, it is truth and knowledge. But then if I put my glasses on and find out it was a fork after all, I still know what the object in front of me (just like before) but I categorize it differently. The only difference between knowing something that could be false and knowing something that could be true is the Objective truth of the knowledge, not the PRESENCE of knowledge. This is a key point that my opponent is missing in the philosophical component in this debate.Humans work in estimations, humans won't be bothered about the small percentage of chance that something that they 'know' is false. Which is why religious fundamentalists hardly convert to other religions or become irreligious.If sufficient evidence is given to make the probability of God existing high enough, I will live my life as if he exists. If no such evidence is provided, then there is no reason to live as if a god does exist and I live as normal. However the very next thing you say is “It cannot be proven or falsified (just like the God hypothesis).” Do you know that? So you do know something now. Make up your mind.And if you can know nothing, how do you know this: “The same of course, applies to you, maybe everything you know could be wrong. "If you can’t know anything, how do you know what I can know?! “1+1 = 2, that is a truth, whether the world was formed supernaturally (by God) or naturally(not by God).” Huh? You conceded that you can’t know anything, but now you're saying you know that 1+1 equals 2... You really need to clarify what you know or not… All of these rebuttals by Pro is assuming that I don't know something, which I have shown to be an incorrect premise to work on. Therefore lets move on.You said you can’t know anything, and now you're talking about proof. Proof presupposes truth. But you said you can't know what's true. That’s a very big problem. This also operates on the false premise. I do know some things for 99.9999...% objective certainity and I know what the heck proof is. With evidence and proof and examination of said evidence and truth, I can increase the probability that some fact is true.As for me - I know that God exists because of His divine revelation. And you can't tell me there's a problem with that if you know nothing. That is insufficient objective proof that God exists. I can tell you there is a problem with that because I am not someone who knows nothing. Going back to my spoon and fork example, I can mistakenly tell everyone in my house that I stood in front of a spoon (which is incorrect) because I saw it with my own eyes (similar to all these so called 'divine revelations') but that does not mean that the object in front of me was a spoon. To correct myself I need to put on my glasses (re-examine the evidence) or get my family (with perfect eyesight) to see the object and describe it(peer-reviewed evidence) both of them will have me arrive at the position that the object was a fork, the objective truth of this example.If god revealed himself to you, why not to me? Me who was born into a family that indoctrinated me into thinking that Hindu gods are true and I must worship their Idols? The Christian God is not a fan of idolaters, so why did he not reveal to me that I was doing something 'wrong' and then correct me? Pity that Jesus never reveals himself to people not born into christian families or people who don't live in areas of moderate to severe christian influence. Very curious. Is it a coincidence that all of these Christian revelations all just so happen to occur in Christian Majority nations? Where the population is indoctrinated into thinking that Christianity is the truth? The Placebo effect is real and must be taken into consideration. I am also curious to see what God supposedly said to you during revelation? How did he come before you? Could you not get some evidence of the revelation so that the world may follow God (That seems to be God's agenda, hence the Bible).I hope you can see my friend. I only want you to arrive at truths based on evidence. Can you show us any scientific evidence that God exists rather than just annecdotal ones (because there are plenty of contradictory annecdotal evidences)?I await your rebuttals to all my questions raised and points made.