Theism (Christianity) vs Athiesm

I cover a number of very fatal flaws in your argument so please read thoroughly. :)“The logic used here is very flawed. According to Pro's logic, since I said that I could be wrong about nothing, I therefore know everything. Isn't that the same logic pro used in his point?” If I understand you correctly, I never said that. I said that because you could be wrong about everything, it follows that you know nothing. If you’re talking about me - no, I never said I know everything. I can know some things such that I can know them for certain. One of these is that God exists. And you can have no objection to this. “Pro's entire argument assumes a very false premise/assumption. That is, since someone could be wrong about something that is known, that person cannot know it. “ Duh. If I could be wrong about the speed limit outside, then I don’t know it. “This is a very faulty line of reasoning. Nobody truly knows anything for 100% certain unless it has something to do with definitions, for example everybody knows for 100% that Homosexual males are not attracted to females. But that fact is only 100% because of the definitions of words. Other than that, nothing can be known for a 100%.”R32; You said: “Other than that, nothing can be known for 100%.” Do you know that for 100% certain?? That’s an obvious (and absurd) contradiction. Obviously some things can be known for certain. But you (as you demonstrated) can’t account for certainty without God. That’s a big problem. You keep saying you can’t know anything to be 100% certain - but how do you know anything to be even 0.000001% certain?? “There is a small chance that my username is not 'Theunkown' and I have been hallucinating all this time. But the chance of that (based on evidence of me and friends seeing this account) make me near certain that this account and the username is accurate. Though not 100%, just 99.99999.....%, but the probablity that my username is not 'Theunkown' is soo small that I might as well spend my time on this website knowing for sure that my username is ‘Theunkown’." How do you know your username to be certain to even 0.000001% certainty?? You can’t! If you can be wrong about everything, why are you debating me?? I can be certain that God exists through His revelation, and you can have no objection if you know nothing objectively. You can’t even know that you're not a brain in the vat without God. “Let me give another example. If I see a fork, but I forget to put on my glasses and assume it is a spoon and think it is a spoon, then it I have the specific knowledge that the object in front of me is a spoon.” That’s absurd. How can you know something that’s not true?? I know that the moon is made of cheese. Uh… but it’s not… I’m talking objective truth. Truth that is true regardless of your perception. God exists - that is objectively true, and I can know that for certain through his revelation, which again, you can’t object to if you know nothing. And you have yet another problem - you're saying truth is relative. Is that absolutely/objectively true? Another contradiction in your argument. “It may be objectively false knowledge based off of faulty observations, but it is still knowledge because I know for 99.99999% certainity that it is a spoon but to me, subjectively, it is truth and knowledge. But then if I put my glasses on and find out it was a fork after all, I still know what the object in front of me (just like before) but I categorize it differently. “ Again, how do you know to even 0.000001% certainty?? You can’t! You can’t even know that you're not a brain in a vat. Yet we are still debating. (I hear people reading this say: “You could be wrong too.” But how do you know that if you know nothing?? It’s a big problem.) “The only difference between knowing something that could be false and knowing something that could be true is the Objective truth of the knowledge, not the PRESENCE of knowledge. This is a key point that my opponent is missing in the philosophical component in this debate.”R32; So you can’t know anything to be objectively true. Yet we are still debating. Sigh… “Humans work in estimations, humans won't be bothered about the small percentage of chance that something that they 'know' is false. Which is why religious fundamentalists hardly convert to other religions or become irreligious. If sufficient evidence is given to make the probability of God existing high enough, I will live my life as if he exists. If no such evidence is provided, then there is no reason to live as if a god does exist and I live as normal.”R32; Again, how do you know you're objectively right to even 0.000001%?? You can’t! Yet the very next thing you say is “If sufficient evidence is given…” Evidence presupposes objective truth. If you can’t know anything to be objectively true, why do you want “evidence”?? “All of these rebuttals by Pro is assuming that I don't know something, which I have shown to be an incorrect premise to work on. Therefore lets move on.”R32;R32; You haven't shown anything. You still can’t know anything to be objectively true. And even when you say “…nothing can be known for 100%”, do you know that for 100% certain? A five year old could tell you that that’s a contradiction. It’s absurd! “I do know some things for 99.9999...% objective certainity and I know what the heck proof is. With evidence and proof and examination of said evidence and truth, I can increase the probability that some fact is true.”R32; How do you know anything to be even 0.000001% true?? You can’t - yet you still want evidence, which presupposes objective truth. Why do you want evidence if you can know nothing to be objectively true?? I said: “As for me - I know that God exists because of His divine revelation. And you can't tell me there's a problem with that if you know nothing.”R32;R32; You then said: “That is insufficient objective proof that God exists.” Objective proof presupposes objective truth. Objective truth presupposes God. You want evidence, when again, you can’t know anything to be objectively true… “I can tell you there is a problem with that because I am not someone who knows nothing. Going back to my spoon and fork example, I can mistakenly tell everyone in my house that I stood in front of a spoon (which is incorrect) because I saw it with my own eyes (similar to all these so called 'divine revelations') but that does not mean that the object in front of me was a spoon. To correct myself I need to put on my glasses (re-examine the evidence) or get my family (with perfect eyesight) to see the object and describe it(peer-reviewed evidence) both of them will have me arrive at the position that the object was a fork, the objective truth of this example.” Why do you want evidence (which presupposes objective truth) if you can’t know anything to be objectively true?? And also (you talked about using your senses to see the fork) you can’t even know your senses are valid without God. Tell me - how do you know your senses are valid? You can’t. You could think that you're a perfectly sane person in a room with blue walls, when in fact you’re a brain in a vat in a room with yellow walls! “If god revealed himself to you, why not to me? Me who was born into a family that indoctrinated me into thinking that Hindu gods are true and I must worship their Idols? The Christian God is not a fan of idolaters, so why did he not reveal to me that I was doing something 'wrong' and then correct me? Pity that Jesus never reveals himself to people not born into christian families or people who don't live in areas of moderate to severe christian influence. Very curious.”R32;R32; He did reveal himself to you. And he still does. You know he exists. But you deny him, and therefore you have zero basis for any truth. Will ya look at that- it’s just like the Bible says: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” “Is it a coincidence that all of these Christian revelations all just so happen to occur in Christian Majority nations? Where the population is indoctrinated into thinking that Christianity is the truth? The Placebo effect is real and must be taken into consideration. “R32; “The Placebo effect is real…” Is it? I thought you could be wrong? And no, that’s not true what you said. Christian revelations happen everywhere. Obviously there is less denial of this revelation in Christian countries. “I am also curious to see what God supposedly said to you during revelation? How did he come before you? Could you not get some evidence of the revelation so that the world may follow God (That seems to be God's agenda, hence the Bible).” That he exists. Object to that. How did he come before me? Irrelevant. How was this computer I’m typing on made? I don’t care - it works! But if you must know – he reveals himself through inner revelation and also through the Bible, and his amazing creation. “Could you not get some evidence…” “I only want you to arrive at truths based on evidence.” Evidence presupposes objective truth. Objective truth presupposes God. Again, you can’t know anything to be objectively true, yet you still want evidence… “Can you show us any scientific evidence that God exists”R32; Science presupposes objective truth. Objective truth presupposes God. You can’t know anything to be objectively true without God. I hope you didn’t miss any of my points. Please read the above thoroughly and think about it.- Let’s summarize here: 1. How do you know anything to be 0.000001% objectively true? 2. “Other than that, nothing can be known for 100%.” Are you certain about that? (Think about it…) 3. Why do you want evidence/proof (which presupposes objective truth) if you can't know anything to be objectively true? 4. How do you know your senses are valid? 5. What is your objection to my claim to knowledge that God exists? I strongly recommend you read over this a few times and have a good think before you respond.