God exists. You can't escape it. (TAG debate)

And I pray that the Holy Spirit will give me, my opponent, and everyone else who will read this, "eyes to see, ears to hear and hearts to perceive. "This debate is about the existence of God and I (Pro) will be arguing that God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility. That is, without God we can not make sense of our experience, indeed we can not make sense of anything at all. This would mean that knowledge can not be gained, and as I told unitedandy (Con) prior to this debate, he wouldn't even be able to make any logical argument for or against God, or anything for that matter, without presupposing God (the Christian worldview). I would like for this round to be a definitons and clarifications round only, so I will only present briefly my position and not really make any arguments yet until my opponent presents his position as well. DefinitionsGod - God as described in the Bible, as interpreted by Reformed theology. This means that Allah, Buddah, the god of Mormonism, of JW's, of Roman Catholic's and even the Arminianist view of God are all irrelevant. I ask my opponent and the readers to not use any non Reformed view of God to represent my view of God. Those can be settled in a separate debate. My Position (important! please read and understand what my actual stance is)In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1). God created man in His own image. (Gen. 1:27)The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. (Prov. 1:7)The God of the Bible is the eternal creator and source of everything. This includes all truths and knowledge. What we know and the tools and faculties that we use to know what we know, He is the source of them all. He is perfect in every way and is the ultimate standard of all truths. His infallible word is the ultimate authority. He created man in his own image and revealed to man His nature, man's nature, and His and man's relationship, ie. creator-creature. Man is to think God's thoughts after Him, since He created man in his image. God's revelation is man's starting point of knowledge. The Bible says in Romans 1, that God made plain to everyone what may be known about Him since creation, namely; His eternal power and divine nature. But man suppresses this truth, and does not acknowledge, honor or give thanks to God, because of his rebellion and hatred toward God. As you can see, based on my view of God and His word, I can not turn around and try to prove God based on evidences and/or propositions that lead to a conclusion that God therefore exists. I would contradict and betray my own position if I do so. If I claim that God's revelation is the ultimate authority and the ultimate starting point of knowledge, it would therefore mean that:1. I did not come to believe in God by condcluding that God exists after examining evidences and/or propositions. God revealed himself to all since creation. I knew Him since birth, and so does my opponent, and everyone else.2. Simply using evidences and propositions to prove God would be futile because my opponent, according to the Bible (my ultimate authority) already has all the evidences that he needs, in fact he already knows God in his heart of hearts. It's this heart that needs to be converted in order for him to stop rebelling against God and suppressing the truths that was plainly revealed to all. 3. It would be un-Biblical (betraying my own position) and illogical to try to use argumentations using autonomous knowledge to come to the conclusion that God therefore exists, because that would contradict my starting premise; that God is the source and starting point of all knowledge. The moment I do that, I would have already relinquished my position and lost the debate.4. I would HAVE TO first presuppose God in order to prove anything or else my position is false. Now what I claim is that Con, in order to make any argument against God, would also have to do the same exact thing; presuppose God and the truths that was plainly revealed to him! Now was that a circular argument? How can I presuppose the very thing I am trying to prove? ! Well of course it is circular! It is unavoidable when dealing with ultimate commitments. Everyone does it, and I am certain that my opponent will as well. For example, Im sure my opponent will appeal to logic and reason during this debate, since they are our ultimate standards for logic and reason. But you see, he will not be able to prove that logic and reason are logical and reasonable, without first presupposing that they are. There is no way around it. (Con, if you disagree with this please include your argument in the Laws of Logic section) The difference is, ONLY the Christian circle is not a vicious one, anything contrary destroys itself, as I intend to show in this debate. How then can we engage in debate if I'm already presupposing what I'm trying to prove? It's simple. My argument is that my position is THE ONLY system that is internally coherent and that which makes our experiences intelligible, and anything contrary to my position will result to absurdity and/or is internally incoherent when followed to its own logical conclusion. Internal Critique of AtheismI intend to show how my opponent's position, atheism, is internally incoherent, inconsistent, arbitrary and results to absurdity. (in the second round)I would also like to first address a common fallacious argument that atheists like to use when debating against theists. Some atheists like to assert that atheism, is simply the lack of belief in a god, not unlike a lack of belief in elves or unicorns. This is quiet simply wrong but atheists like to use it to insist that all the burden of proof is on their opponent. Atheism, especially a-Christian-theism (lack of belief in the existence of the Christian God), is not at all the same as, lets say, a-elfism (lack of belief in the existence of elves) for the simple reason that belief or unbelief in the existence of elves holds NO necessary implications whatsoever, since NOTHING is depedent on their existence. The same can not be said about the belief in the existence of God. For example, If I say that I don't believe that land exists, I can't just insist that the burden of proof is on the landists. I need to also explain what I believe I am standing on and why I am not sinking into the ocean. Likewise, the atheist needs to explain what he is "standing on" so to speak, ie: what are his grounds for morality, reason, logic, epistemology, and his very existence. This makes atheism a WORLDVIEW. In order to avoid any misrepresentation and miscommunitations, I would like to ask Con to state his views on the following:Are you a naturalist? What are the Laws of Logic? What is your epistemology? (how do we know what we know? )