The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

I'm going to ignore The Fool's plethora of allegations regarding my "intentional deception". The voters can judge whether or not I am misrepresenting his position. I'll focus on the charges against my argument instead.What is Logical About God?Fool: If there is a god we don’t understand such power, and so there is no way of deriving if or if not god has any logical relation to the world, for it is beyond our knowledge. So we could never know that for sure. But we do know for sure that the universe is the universe.Fallacy: Question Begging.One can only say that only the universe can be certain if in fact we are certain that anything outside the universe is not certain. But that's what this debate is about. The Fool™ must first win this debate before he can claim this "tautology."The Nature of LanguageConsider this tidbit from round 2:Fool: The bible has no advantage. We don’t know what if any reality is being symbolized other than somebodies ideas. A definition of god is simply that, a definition of the word god. If any god exists it is independent of what anything defines him as.And combine it with this:Fool: This is great because you realize that all you have is word and idea of god, for there to be any reality to come about by elimination god and his supernatural-ness must be demonstrated in reality first. I look forward to the show. Mind if I watch from a hill top?Fallacy: Argumentum ad absurdumIf something must be determined to be a reality before it can be defined, then any debate about the very reality of something is impossible. This includes debates on all abstract topics, such as morality, logic itself, and mathematics. How can anyone debate anything if they can't define it first?Live on with the Fool!The Fool™ is certain he exists. Did he define "I" before he was certain he existed, or was he certain he existed before "I"? If his existence is based on his thinking, how could he think about "being" before "I" had meaning?Fallacy: Red HerringThis is not a refutation of my original argument.LineThe Fool™ is hung up on this notion that the Bible cannot be certain about reality and, therefore, cannot be certain to reflect God. This does not refute my argument.Fallacy: Special PleadingMy argument is setting out to prove God exists as defined. The source of that definition is irrelevant. I could define God as a block of cheese on Mars, and it would still be absurd to say that I can't use that definition until after we've proven it's existence.If the definition of God is disallowed, then by the same logic, neither is The Fool's definition of Universe.The universe, according to The Fool™, is synonymous with reality. Thus, this very debate determines the definition of Universe. Here are the possible outcomes: The Fool™ Wins: Universe does not include God. KRFournier Wins: Universe does include God. So, The Fool™ must concede that the Universe is not certain in this debate until the debate if finished or else succumb to begging the question.StinkerP1. The Sophist now has to create a definition of God,P2. You can’t define things into reality, so the reality of god must be demonstrated.C3. Therefor [sic] it is not possible for a logical argument for god.Fallacy: Circular ReasoningP2 is contingent upon the truth of C3.The Universe and LogicFallacy: Begging the QuestionGiven The Fool's™ definition of Universe, it includes logical laws. He says they are found in the relations within the universe. This, however, begs the question. There are two ways the term Universe can be defined: Consisting of all of reality. Consisting of our cosmos, i.e., this physical universe. If The Fool™ relies on the former, then he commits the fallacies mentioned already. He's just saying that Logical Laws just exist. That is begging the question because it is the transcendental necessity of those laws that are being challenged. Thus, he must do more than just assert that they "are" because the Universe "is."If The Fool™ relies on the latter, then he is tasked to provide a materialistic account for the necessary preconditions for Laws of Logic. He has not done this, so I he's either relying on the former definition or simply side-stepping this challenge.ConclusionThe Fool™ devotes a great deal of his time to paint a picture of my character. He wants the readers to view me as some kind of miscreant looking to distort his every word. He says that he's not engaging in ad hominem when doing this, but I'm not sure what else to call it. The Fool™ is well within his rights to correct me where I am mistaken, but he chooses instead to pass allegations and then demand that I waste precious space answering them in turn.I laid out my argument as plainly as possible in Round 1. I countered his Round 2 single-sentence criticisms. In rounds 3 and 4, I've exposed the serious fallacies of his views on language and definitions and exposed his circular reasoning with regards to his definition of Universe. It is imperative that The Fool™ explain his claims in the last round rather than just repeatedly assert them as de facto true. Specifically, I want him to explain precisely which premises in my argument are false.