That Strong Atheism is Unreasonable

==Framework== The con starts out his round two by attacking my arguments, which breaks the rules once again. Only arguments were allowed in the second round (as stated in first round.) The con made no arguments of his own, and thus can not win the debate, for he has not fulfilled his burden of proof.His arguments in the first round were nullified due to the breaking of the rules. I was not allowed to respond to his arguments in the second round, since it was for arguments (by the pro and con) only. Second, whoever meets their BoP better wins the debate. I am not proving this to a certainty, just as well as I can. I am not attempting to prove anything, but rather meet my burden of proof as well as I can. My opponent obviously did not read my round 1 structure or my round two framework, which both clearly stated about the BoP and what my opponent needed to do to win the debate. Furthermore, I urge the voters to dock my opponent on the sources category also- all of his claims (main arguments in R1) are unsupported by sources. I also tell the voters to vote against my opponent on conduct, for he has broken the rules twice now and is obviously ignoring my frameworks. His spelling and grammar makes his arguments quite tough to understand, too. I advise the voters to take a look at that, too. =========================================================================================== Rc1: Proof and Paradoxes There is no evidence to suggest my logic is unsound. My opponent is trying to prove there is a 100% (since the basis of strong atheism relies on it,) so by arguing there is no 100%, he practically refutes himself. Furthermore, my opponent only refutes the basis of my logic, but not the logic itself. He does nothing to show that one can reach a reasonable conclusion without very strong evidence or proof. I also request for my opponent to explain exactly how my logic is based on empiricism. My point still stands: one can not know for an absolute fact that something does exist or doesn't exist without proof. I ask my opponent to show exactly how one can prove, for an absolute fact, that something does exist or doesn't exist without any proof. My opponent also goes on to say that God contradicts Himself. He claims that since God is all-knowing (omnipotent), he is limited by himself. My opponent does not show how God is limited by Himself, leaving an empty argument and giving me nothing to work with. I ask my opponent, again, to explain how God contradicts himself. However, I can attempt to refute what I believe my opponent is trying to say. God is omnipotent within the laws of logic and His nature [1]. Richard Swinburne suggests that God can only act in a logical way, that is in His nature. He can not support logical absurdities. Since the "omnipotence" has been taken from the Bible, we can return to the Bible for answers. Hebrew 6:18 [2]: "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie..." The Bible supports the assertion that God can only do things within His nature, which is just a different version of omnipotence. He can not say or do anything contrary to his very nature, like a human can not perform actions outside of their nature. This is also supported by Richard Swinburne: "S is omnipotent at time t =df S is able at t to bring about any state of affairs p such that it is consistent with the facts about what happened before t that, after t, S should bring about p [3]." =========================================================================================== Rc2: Starting Arguments and Summary This will be dedicated to refuting my opponent's first round arguments. The determinism argument was already refuted above (or the omnipotence argument.) As for the concept of God, that was crossed out by an argument I made in the second round (Physics and Metaphysics.) Since we have finite knowledge, we can only perceive Him in a metaphysical way. We can believe in the metaphysical God, which is still the same God.Furthermore, my opponent provides no evidence that one can not understand God. To believe in God usually means just to think He exists, regardless of whether one understands Him or not. My opponent continues to claim my arguments are empiricist (well, without any evidence) and neglects to refute the actual information within it. My opponent also neglects to show that there is a 100% certainty in whether God exists- which is what he needs to do to win the debate.The con then tries to justify why he posted arguments in the first round, and then tries to switch the BoP directly to me. If he wanted to switch the BoP, he must have done it in the first round. Switching the BoP after an opponent has made his argument is not good conduct at all. Furthermore, it was clearly stated in the first and second round that BoP was shared. This was accepted by the con upon acceptance of this debate.He then claims my arguments are irrelevant to the debate, when they are not. I explained how each one supported my BoP, and he simply ignores this. I ignored his arguments since the second round was for arguments only. I addressed his arguments earlier in this round. ==Summary==In conclusion, my opponent did not even address my C2 and C3, but only attacked my C1. He also conceded part of my C3 by admitting himself that the idea of God is metaphysical. My second and third contentions are dropped as of now, and my first contention has not been thoroughly refuted (if refuted at all.) My opponent also neglects to show how my arguments are wrong, but merely claims that since I base them on empiricism, they are incorrect (without explaining himself.)My opponent also is trying to switch the BoP. It is much too late in the debate to do that, as it would be highly unfair to me since my arguments were already presented (and my opponent gave no signal that he wanted to change the BoP.) Also-I can't stress this enough- all guidelines (including the shared BoP) were accepted when con accepted this debate. He has already broken the structure of the debate (conduct,) not shared any links or evidence (sources,) and has not had fluent S&G (grammar.) I thank my opponent for the debate insofar. I look forward to his response.Sources: [1] http://carm.org... [2] http://www.icr.org... [3] Swinburne, Richard. 1973. Omnipotence. American Philosophical Quarterly 10: 231-237.