That Strong Atheism is Unreasonable

My opponent arguments in C1, C2 and C3 are based on the empiricist model and since no one is arguing that one can physically prove God, all three of his arguments are completely pointless. Inaccurate conclusion: "Since strong atheism relies upon scientific evidence to prove the nonexistence of God" The only way one can prove a certainty is by refuting a claim based on its logical inconsistencies thereby showing that the model is impossible ( I have done this in the previous round). The sources are not proper authorities of this subject and are supporting pointless arguments: "1] http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com...... [2] http://www.str.org...... [3] http://c2.com...... [4] http://www.iep.utm.edu...... (See 2: Organization and Association of Ideas) [5] http://carm.org...... [6] https://www3.nd.edu...; Therefore they should be discarded as it is very easy to post unrelated links. In addition, my opponent has not addressed the fallacy of his position : " He is attempting to prove that nothing can be proven to 100% certainty by attempting to prove something to 100% certainty which is nonsense". This contradicts his claim as if nothing is certain than one cannot conclude with certainty that atheist is unreasonable. In addition, my opponent is attempting to use rationalism to support his point but asking that the opposite side use empiricism. "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.) " -> This is a clear cop-out by my opponent to avoid addressing the main issues of this 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." -> This once again is based on the empiricist model. The purpose of this model is to create a foundation that one can progressively build on with physical evidence in order to put all scientist on the right path. This is why it is the predominate method in academia but it is not the only model. Rationalism or arguments made by reason alone can also prove a position by refuting another. Furthermore, one does not need an authority to validate his idea, instead one uses them to add credibility to them. Here, he is purposefully distorting my argument: "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%" I stated that empiricism cannot prove something to 100%. At no point, however, did I state that 100% certain was not possible. Actually, I stated that rationalism can refute an argument to 100%. thus creating some form of certainty. This is why academics use the word support instead of prove but will still use the word refute in an article. "He does nothing to show that one can reach a reasonable conclusion without very strong evidence or proof. " -> Redundantly, repeats his arguments against empiricism which is circumventing the issue. "one can not know for an absolute fact that something does exist or doesn't exist without proof. " -> Proof is the corner stone of empiricism, they attempt to validate their position. Rationalism, by contrast, uses logical inconsistencies to invalidate positions. You cannot prove something to 100% certainty but you can refute it to 100% certainty. "My opponent does not show how God is limited by Himself" To be omnipotent one must be all powerful (i.e. ability to do anything), - If God were to attempt to make something so heavy that he could not lift it, whether he succeeds of fails he would still end up contradicting his omnipotence. The point is that God is limited by the traits that God posses. This ranges from his thoughts to his composition. Not matter what he is made of it has the limits based on itself. Because of this, no so called God could be called a God but merely a more advance being or race. Ultimately, humans can achieve anything that they can dream up (if it is of rational proportional) since their imagination is based on the physical world and the physical world is merely matter in different orders. Therefore, only a being that can transcend the limits of itself (matter or composition) can be call a God and such a being is logically inconsistent. "God can only act in a logical way" -> Then he is not a God but merely a more evolved race (one that has mastered the physical world) "The Bible supports the assertion that..." -> Since we are not discussing the traditional God (which would be against your interest), the Bible is not a reliable source. In addition, again if one cannot transcended the physical limits one is not a God. In accurate statement: "The determinism argument was already refuted." "My opponent continues to claim my arguments are empiricist (well, without any evidence)" -> How would one refute empiricism with empiricism? His argument is nonsense. "In conclusion, my opponent did not even address my C2 and C3, but only attacked my C1." -> I refuted all 3 of them simultaneously. Summary My opponent has merely repeated irrelevant arguments and attempted to fine excuses as to why he deserves free point in this debate. He is to concern with winning that he defeats the very purpose of this debate with circular reasoning. In addition, he uses sources to support pointless argument in order to earn point in the category of reliable source. My opponent is doing everything in his power to win this debate expect refuting my points.