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

I would first like to say that I never gave an "admission" of how "flawed" TAG is. It is not. I would not be using it if it were. What I said was that proving ultimate authorities/commitments (ie God, LA) is unavoidably circular, but not a vicious circle that would be considered a flawed argument. This is true for EVERYONE. Please reread my position in round 1. Remember that my argument is not that God exists because He does (though it's true). I will also not be using Slick's argumentation.I would also like to address Con's rejection of the statement I made in the first round that atheism is a worldview. He states that "there are several worldviews that encompass atheism." I agree that atheism is not one particular system or worldview, indeed there are many sub groups of atheism just like theism. I would like to clarify my statement and say that every single one of these subgroups is a worldview, and every single one of them is contrary to the Christian worldview. My opponent has already shown that he holds a very specific atheistic worldview.My ArgumentI will be arguing from the impossibility of the contrary:My aim in this debate is to show thatThe denial of the Christian position (as I stated in round 1) makes intelligibility impossible. a. The Christian position is the ONLY internally coherent, rational, consistent system. (I'm anticipating Con to try to refute this) b. Anything contrary to the Christian worldview is internally incoherent, irrational, inconsistent and arbitrary. (As I will try to demonstrate)c. One must presuppose the Christian worldview in order to prove ANYTHING.d. One must relinquish contrary worldviews and acknowledge the truthfulness of the Christian worldview and all its implications, if he wants to be rational and consistent.Only the Christian worldview can account for and make sense of:1. Morality2. Knowledge3. Laws of logic4. Uniformity of NatureLet me summarize the Christian worldview to briefly restate my claim:The eternal God of the Bible is the supreme being that is perfect in every way. He is the standard of goodness and of logic and rationality. He created and governs the universe and is sole reason why it has order. He created man in His own image and revealed who He is and who man is.Now remember that my argument is that anything contrary to my above claims makes intelligibility impossible. I am claiming that Con himself needs to presuppose these truths to argue against them. Essentially, any argument that he comes up with, ultimately relies on the axiomatic truths that ONLY the Christian worldview can account for. I am also claiming that only the Christian worldview is consistent and can make sense of our experiences.Internal Critique of Atheism1. MoralityThis is simple, absolute morality can only exist if God exists. Without God, who is the standard of goodness and is the ultimate authority over man's thoughts and actions, morality is reduced to subjective and arbitrary ideologies. This means that we have no basis on which we can call something good or evil. Goodness can not even be defined.Note that I am not accusing Con of being an immoral man, in fact he seems very respectful. What I am saying is that Con does not have a rational basis on which he can say something or someone is wrong. I'll let Con state his view on morality first before I get in to this subject.2. KnowledgeCon states that he holds to Classical Foundationalism as his epistemology."Foundationalism is any theory in epistemology (typically, theories of justification, but also of knowledge) that holds that beliefs are justified (known, etc.) based on what are called basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs). Basic beliefs are beliefs that give justificatory support to other beliefs, and more derivative beliefs are based on those more basic beliefs. The basic beliefs are said to be self-justifying or self-evident, that is, they enjoy a non-inferential warrant (or justification), i.e., they are not justified by other beliefs." (1)Foundationalism tries to avoid an infinite regress by claiming that at the very back of our epistemology are these "basic or foundational beliefs" (FBs). This proves my claim in round 1 that Con himself has his own presupposed truths that are not justified by evidences, but are actually his very basis for all knowledge. They can not be proven without resulting to circular reasoning. Which I claimed is unavoidable. As you can see, in a way we share this view of epistemology, I hold basic FBs as my starting point for knowledge as well. The difference is my FBs are the truths of God's revelation. Con on the other hand, because of his worldview, will not go beyond naturalistic FBs as his starting point. Basically at the very end of all the "why" questions, Con will simply answer, "that's just how nature is." Now here are the problems with this:1. Con argues that, " If CF is more plausible than RE, then belief in the existence of God must be justified evidentially in order to be a rationally held belief." Why exactly must the existence of God be justified evidentially but not Con's basic beliefs, or maybe a better question would be, How can Con somehow prove that CF is more plausible than revelation/reformed epistemology when the only difference between them is that:a. In RE these FBs are revealed by the omniscient, omnipresent, authoritative creator.b. In CF these FBs are just known.2. I assume that these FB's that Con holds are all absolute and universal, now how can man, individually or collectively, "just know" universal and absolute truths? CF is an incomplete epistemology, and therefore not a good epistemology at all, since it doesn't fully answer how we know what we know. It only answers what we've somehow always known. ie "basic beliefs" CF can not account for knowledge, and must actually presuppose the Christian worldview and theory of knowledge to be rational.3. Laws of Logic (LA)The expression of LA are not what I refer to when I speak of LA. Obviously Aristotle simply expressed and transcribed into human languange what LA are. These expressions, symbols, words, etc are not the actual LA. Before Aristotle expresed LA in human languange, they already existed and they will continue to exist if we get rid of every written or verbal expression of LA.It seems however that Con does not deny that LA are universal and absolute. However, 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. He argues that LA are merely expressions or descriptions of what they refer to; the nature of existence, which in an atheistic/naturalistic universe would mean nature of matter. Con accounts for LA as simply the description of the nature of matter.Problems:1. We do not know the inherent nature of matter/existence, we only know what we can observe; how they behave. 2. We can never observe the behavior of ALL of matter/existence ALL THE TIME, therefore we can not create universal absolute "laws" out of our observations.3. In order for us to correctly observe the behavior of matter/existence we have to already be presupposing LA."The laws of thought (laws of logic) are fundamental axiomatic rules upon which rational discourse itself is based." (2) LA are not dependent on matter. They are abstract laws that we appeal to as our standard for rational discourse.4. Uniformity of NatureCon in trying to account for LA is actually assuming the uniformity of nature, ie that nature is the way it is all the time everywhere, and does not/will not change in time. Only the Christian worldview has a rational basis for the uniformity of nature and make induction rational. Con has no rational basis to assume the uniformity of nature, he is again borrowing from my worldview. I would like to know Con's view on the problem of induction.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...