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. I won't bother rebutting most of the points because they would just be a repitition, since my opponent makes the same points in many rebuttalsThat’s absurd. How can you know something that’s not true?? Of course you can know something that is not (objectively) true. You know that the Christian God exists and you know that idol worshipping is against god's will. Hindus know that Shiva exists and know that worshipping him through an idol representitive represents piety. Both of them contradict each other, yet both groups (Christians and Hindus) know that their god(s) exist and know the right way to worship them. I’m talking objective truth. Truth that is true regardless of your perception. God exists - that is objectively true, and I can know that forcertain through his revelation, which again, you can’t object to if you know nothing. And you have yet another problem - you're saying truth is relative. Is that absolutely/objectively true? Another contradiction in your argument. Nobody is going to deny that objective truth exists. The problem is getting to know that truth, since we are only limited to our human perception and reason, which has its flaws. And again, its not that I know nothing, its just that it is possible for none/some/many/all of my knowledge to be wrong. That does not automatically mean that I know nothing, that is just a ludicrous logic.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? Every religious group can and do claim that their God or Godess revealed his/her existance to them. I have yet to meet a non-Christian who had deeply held beliefs in another religion or no religion, and out of the blue the Christian god revealed himself. But then again, we must doubt the validity of all annecdotal evidence.“…nothing can be known for 100%”,do you know that for 100% certain? A five year old could tell you that that’s a contradiction.I never said I knew that for a 100%. Don't act like you have suddenly figured this out all by yourself and nobody has ever thought about it (that's the tone I am getting from your arguments). Obviously I thought about this as well.Based on my perception and reason, I can say that it is likely the case (Just as Aristotle did) for better or for worse.How do you know anything to be even 0.000001% true?? You can’t - yet you still want evidence, which presupposes objective truth. Why do you want evidence if you can know nothing to be objectively true?? With such a low probablity (0.000001%) of truth, there must essentially be no evidence. If there was evidence, the probability of it being true increases. I don't see how this is illogical. This does not contradict the notion that evidence presupposes truth. I want evidence to increase the probability of something being true. If the probability reaches a high enough percentage, its so high that any reasonable person would live their life knowing it to be truth, but the open minded person should always keep that small chance of the truth being wrong and proven wrong when counter-evidence is presented. As we have seen time and time again in history. 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?He did reveal himself to you. And he still does. You know he exists. But you deny him, and therefore you have zero basis for any truth.I don't know how my opponent can claim what my beliefs are.I have yet to receieve a revelation from the Christian God. I don't know that he exists, I infact disbelieve all claims of such Gods existing. Thus far in my life anyway. I don't simply 'deny' god, if I was given scientific evidence for the God of the Bible, I would believe in him. Also please don't say I am angry at god, becuase being angry at someone is different from not believing in someone. If I am angry at god, that means I must necessarily believe in him. But I don't. Will ya look at that- it’s just like the Bible says: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge”The knowledge that homosexuals should be stoned to death? The knowledge that witchcraft exists? The knowledge of superstition (as oxymoronic as it is)? The knowledge that Earth took several days to be created but the rest of the universe took just one?No, just no. Fearing a supernatural being does not bring knowledge, all it does is bring fear.And no, that’s not true what you said. Christian revelations happen everywhere. Obviously there is less denial of this revelation in Christiancountries.Where is your evidence for this claim? How did he come before me? Irrelevant.How is it irrelevant? If your revelation was true, you could revolutionize the scientific community and the world at large. How was this computer I’m typing on made? I don’t care - it works! But if you must know – he reveals himself through inner revelation and also through the Bible, and his amazing creation. There are far more logical explanations for your inner revelation, the placebo effect for example. I am not a professional psychologist but you must validate your inner revelation with a trained scientist (psychologist). You could revolutionize the world, become a hero. That's the first thing I would do if something like that happened to me.If I say that I created the world in 7 days in a book, that counts as a revelation according to Pro anyway because that's basically counts as proof for god in the Bible, why not for me?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?The same can be said about Pro's claim that 'creation' (i assume the universe) proves the Christian God. By the way, we have growing naturalistic explanations for the universe and its origins, every passing year brings with it new scientific knowledge. To credit God with the creation of the universe is an insult to all humanity has worked to acheive and learn so far.You can’t know anything to be objectively true without God.How do you know that to be objectively true? 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). 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. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dissmised without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens.