That Strong Atheism is Unreasonable

Inaccurate statement: "The con states that no one is truing to prove there is a 100%- even though this is pretty much the underlying idea of this debate." No were do I say this, instead I stated that no one is trying to physically prove, with empirical evidences, that God does not exist. One again, true certainty can only be achieved by refuting something through rationalist arguments (by spotting logical inconsistencies in propositions). "Furthermore, my C2 and C3 arguments remain untouched. My opponent states he refuted them all at the same time, though he says nothing about absence of evidence or metaphysics." C2 and C3 arguments are based on empiricism... If empiricism is not up for debate then they are pointless. What does absence of metaphysic even mean... it a nonsensical statement. Metaphysics is philosophy their therefore cannot be an absence of it. "Third, the con ignores the fact that he has repeatedly broken conduct. I tell this not because I would like a free point, but rather to show my opponent has violated the rules and conduct of the debate" Yet another distracting argument that does not support my opponent case. Why are we even debating if he will not address the issue? "And, last, he states all my sources are irrelevant. This is false, as all of my sources correlate with what I am saying. My opponent takes the immature path and states a lot of unrelated sources- which pretty much contradicts himself. He has no right to say my sources are pointless, as he has not posted any sources correlating to his argument either." You sources are based yet again on empiricism which is not up for debate and therefore irrelevant. "Con has also failed to show how my ideas were based on empiricism, but continues to claim that they are" I have repeatedly shown that they are. Empiricist argument are ones that are based on the physical world or experiments. If God is immaterial, how could any such argument logically validate or invalidate him. The only way why to invalidate God is to challenge the very concept of a God and the implication that they have. If the concept of God is not logically consistent than he cannot exist under any circumstances. "There's a whole debate about whether empiricism or rationalism is correct," No, both are correct they are merely just different approaches. His quote: "According to this view, there is nothing which our understanding cannot grasp, and our perceptions can be regarded as a kind of divine language by which God speaks to us; for God is the cause of our perceptions [1]." This supports the concept that God has to be logically consistent and since that has be refuted this argument is invalid. "I do not refute myself, as I never said I was trying to prove my argument to 100%, just to the fullest extent possible." Your entire argument is hinges on the point that atheist is unreasonable because it cannot be prove at 100% certain yet you admit yourself that your position is cannot be proven at 100% certainty either making your position, by this standard, unreasonable. It is therefore unreasonable to state that pure atheist is unreasonable. "I stated God can do things within his nature, which, truthfully, is just another definition of omnipotent." This is an invalid definition of omnipotency since everything within their nature and therefore, by this standard everything, would be omnipotent. In addition, being limited by ones nature is the complete opposite of omnipotency. "God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections [2]." This argument claims that God can do what ever he wills which has been refuted since cannot create something that he cannot surpass. The first premise is wrong making the whole statement invalid. "This point has been disproven twice now." Here, my opponent confirms his support for rationalist arguments and in fact they are the only one he uses to defend his position. "God was defined in the second round (first definition stated) as "the God from the Bible."" -> I did not use the Bible because it would give me unfair advantage. If my opponent claims that the God he is defending is a biblical God than God's contradictions much larger than the few that I named. "The assertion that God is omnipotent was taken from the Bible. By saying the Bible is not a reliable source, he refutes his omnipotence argument." No, the fundamental concept of a God is one that can surpass physical limitations. If a being is unable to do so they he is simply a more advance race. Inaccurate: "However, God has not been disproven or proven yet." I have refuted the logic of his concept and therefore proven that it is impossible for him to exist. This is a straight-out lie: "He even concedes that one can not prove something to a 100% certainty... meaning one can not prove God does not exist to a 100% certainty." "He does, however, state that something can be refuted to a 100% certainty. The point here is that God has not been proven or disproven to a 100% certainty, so it is unreasonable to be absolutely certain that God does not exist. This point remains untouched by my opponent." My opponent has repeatedly mention conduct but throughout this debate he has merely repeated himself and misrepresented his opponent that to me this seem like much more serious violation of conduct. Summary In this round my opponent merely repeated the arguments he used in the previous round while ignoring the arguments I made. He is using circular reasoning to distract from the issue in order to dodge answering the contradictions of the concept of God.