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

IntroI am disappointed that after 2 rounds, Con has yet to grasp the nature of the debate and understand the argumentation that I am presenting. This is mostly due to Con anticipating a form a TAG that I am not even using. In round 1 Con pretty much laid out what he assumed would be my arguments and based his contentions and arguments on them. I ask Con to please reread my actual arguments, ask me questions (in the comments or in his posts) regarding my position, and not simply assume what my arguments are, based on his past encounters of TAG. Perhaps I should explain my argument again.Impossibility of the Contrary (IC)1. The denial of the Christian worldview (CW) makes intelligibility impossible. In other words, if Christianity is false it will be impossible to prove anything, since the existence of God and his revelations to man are the ONLY rational foundations for morality, logic, knowledge and uniformity of nature.2. One must presuppose the CW in order to try to prove that Christianity is false. In fact one must presuppose the CW to prove anything (note that me presupposing God is consistent with this premise). FallaciesCon accused me of commiting these 3 fallacies:1. False DichotomyCon states, "We see this in the basis of his entire post by (wrongly) assuming that proving atheism false is somehow indicative of the truth of Christianity."This shows that Con does not understand my argument at all. I never asserted that refuting atheism, proves the CW. I said I am arguing from the IC, which Con seemed to have misunderstood. What I'm arguing is that ANYTHING contrary to the CW makes intelligibility impossible, and that any argument against the CW actually presupposes the CW, thus, impossibity of the contrary. I am merely using Con's position to exemplify this argument since he's the one I'm debating, or in Christian terms, "witnessing to." But he is welcome to present any other view that he thinks will refute my claim, but of course it would be completely irrational for him to continue to hold his position and use a different view to refute mine.2. Argument from IgnoranceCon states, "Nowhere does he give an account of these 4 problems, except for criticising the atheist account, and as I will show, assumes the very things in question."I find it ironic that someone who holds to CF would accuse someone of this fallacy. Again, Con simply does not understand the argument that I presented, and completely missed my accounting for the 4 main topics of the debate. Again, I am arguing from the IC. I did not set up any propositions that conclude, "therefore God exists." My position is that God is the rational basis for these 4 topics, so of course I have to assume God or else I would be contradicting my self. Im presupposing God and presented how God accounts for morality, epistemology, LA and uniformity of nature, since those are the basis for any rational discourse. My argument for God is that without God it would be irrational to ground anything on those 4 things. If he wants to know how God accounts for them, all Con needs to do is read my first 2 posts carefully.Con also needs to remember my epistemology and that I am not claiming to have concluded, based on evidences or propositions, that God therefore is the necessary preconditions for these 4 subjects. Im actually arguing from what I claim I already KNOW. I claim that the truth; that the Christian God is what accounts for them, is plainly revealed to all. Having said that, the only way I can demonstrate this is to challenge Con to show me how his or any worldview contrary to Christianity, can rationally account for these 4 topics. If he can't then he is being irrational for relying on any of them to try and refute the CW. 3. StrawmanCon accuses me of strawmanning him because i make statements like, " . . because of his commitment to atheism, he is forced to reject the idea that non physical or abstract entities exist, let alone that they affect and govern the universe"How exactly is that strawmanning? All I did here is argue that Con's presupposed view is what causes Con to interpret things the way he does.I took the liberty of just putting Con in the naturalist category for the sake of this debate after he said this, "while I am not a naturalist myself, I don't foresee a problem in defending it in this context, as it seems to me to be compatible with the position I will hold in the debate." I figured, Con can just point out what he doesn't agree with. While we are at it, maybe you can be more specific on what your view on naturalism is. If you don't believe that matter is all there is, than what else do you believe exist in the universe? Atheism/WorldviewsI never denied Con's definition of atheism, and I already addressed why I call atheism a worldview in my first post. I explained that although I do acknowledge the simplified definition of atheism (lack of belief in the existence of God), the lack of belief in God (especially the Christian God) automatically comes with necessary implications. If someone says he is an atheist, it is automatically assumed that he has very different VIEWS on the most basic things like morality, epistemology, logical absolutes, nature, existence etc, than that of a theist. I really have no idea why Con would say, "it seems to me that there are several "worldviews" which encompass atheism", then reject the idea that atheism is a more general worldview. I also did not automatically assume Con's specific views based on his lack of belief in the existence of God. Any one can read and see that I asked specific questions on my first post regarding what I was gonnna talk about and based my arguments on the answers Con provided. He said he has no problem defending Naturalism. I don't get why when I argued against it, he's accusing me of strawmanning him. But to not waste any more time and precious characters on this topic, I will stop using the word "athiesm" and just say "unbelieving worldview" - any worldview that's contrary to the CW.MoralityCon again missed the point. My claim was that, moral absolutes (MA) and us knowing them is only possible within the CW. I stated that in an atheistic universe, morality is reduced to subjective arbitrary ideologies and conventions. A consistent atheist therefore, would have to reject moral absolutes. I did not assume MA exists then claimed, therefore they do. What I was trying to show here was that any who does not believe in MA is being inconsistent and irrational when he appeals to them.Con says that I simply assumed these things, well if he actually read my post carefully Con wouldve noticed that I specifically said that I will not get in to the topic too much until I know what Con's view on morality is. I did not know which one of my claims he rejects, so I did not make ANY arguments YET.Con in his reply states that he rejects the notion that MA can only exist in a Christian worldview and that he himself accepts that they exist. He then made 3 arguments (read Con's previous post)Here are my rebuttals:a. He fallaciously argues that "many Christians" reject my view (appeal to [alleged] widespread belief). And quotes a "prominent Christian Philosopher" (appeal to FALSE authority). These are invalid, and I explicitly warned Con to not use other Christian views that I don't hold, to represent me. If he wants to quote someone, quote the Bible.b. Like I already said, Con mistakenly thought that my morality argument was to argue that MA exist. Though I believe they do, my actual aim is to show that if one wants to appeal to MA then he needs to pressuppose my worldview.c. Con asserts that atheism does not entail moral subjectivism. My challenge for him is to show how he can rationally account for his espoused belief in MA; What is his basis for MA? How did he come to know what ought to be from what is? How are they authoritative?I ran out of space so I will continue on my argument that only the CW can account for the 4 topics on my next post.