Drafterman's Proof That God Does Not Reveal Himself to Everyone Was Logically Sound

CaseA week ago, Drafterman posted a proof that God does not reveal himself to everyone. From Drafterman reveal - to make known. 1. An atheist does not believe that god exists.2. If you don't believe in something, then you don't know it either.3. Atheists don't know that god exists.4. God is not known to them.5. God has not been revealed to them.6. Atheists are included in the group "everybody"Conclusion: God has not revealed himself to everybody. This proof is logically sound because every premise that Drafterman used was accurate. Premise 1: An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not exist. This is obviously correct because it is a definitional premise. Premises 2-5 on the notion that Atheists do not know if God exists because God has not been revealed to them; this is also logically true because unless someone actually knows whether or not an object exists, that object has not been revealed to them. If I do not know whether or not unicorns exist, it is because I have never seen a unicorn. Similarly, Atheists do not know if God exists because God has never been revealed to them.The final premise and the conclusion discuss whether or not Atheists are part of the set that includes "everyone". Since Atheists are humans and that set includes all humans, Atheists are in that set. Since God has not revealed himself to the Atheists, and Atheists are a subset of the set that includes everybody, God has not revealed himself to everybody.QED. Opponent's Response Ok, so the first thing that I would like to note is that my opponent did not even discuss this proof at all; the debate is about whether or not Drafterman's proof is logically sound, and not about the myriad of other things that he discusses. Insofar as this is true, we can ignore most of his case because it is completely nontopical and does not contribute much to the debate. Response to: "It was not logically sound because he himself did not give me any substantial or empiracal evidence.""Logically sound" denotes "correct according to the principles of logic." Drafterman's obligation was not to provide empirical evidence that proved his case to be true; rather, he was supposed to show that his premises and conclusion fit together. Thus, the fact that he did not provide empirical evidence is immaterial because he was supposed to carry out the proof through the use of logic and not through the use of empirical examples. The impact is that this argument does not actually disprove the proof because it is attempting to impose additional obligations on Drafterman even though he did not have them. Even if you ignore this, Drafterman did provide empirical evidence because he offered himself as a subset of the set of Atheists. Since "everyone" implies every member of the set of humanity, if God does not reveal himself to one person, he does not reveal himself to everyone. Drafterman noted that God has not revealed himself to him, so the proof is correct on an empirical level as well. The rest of my opponent's arguments are about intelligent design and divine intervention. These have absolutely nothing to do with Drafterman's contention that God does not reveal himself to everyone, so we can ignore these completely. However, for my opponent's edification, I will respond to his "complexity" analysis.The first problem is that my opponent's argument rests on a "god of the gaps" fallacy. His argument is that, essentially, he does not believe that science can adequately explain the complexity of life, so "God" must be responsible. This fallacious reasoning rests on the assumption that since we cannot explain a phenomenon, the event must be supernatural. This is the same logic that led the Ancient Egyptians to believe that Sun was a god who journeyed across the sky every die and spent the rest of the night combating demons in the Underworld. Just because science cannot explain a phenomenon at the moment does not mean that a scientific explanation does not exist. Second, his complexity analysis can be refuted with the classic "argument from poor design." He assumes that God is an omniscient, perfect being who created biologically perfect, complex organisms. In fact, this is the basic outline of his logic: Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator. This creator is God. The problem is that the following proof refutes this fallacious notion: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design. Organisms have features that are sub-optimal. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Evidence that the "design" was sub-optimal: The structure of humans' eyes (as well as those of all mammals). The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. (See Evolution of the eye). Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice.[8][9] Thus, I strongly urge a Pro ballot.