I took two hits but I protest on both - yes on semantics. Maybe I should have read the instructions and still should, but:

"You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God?"

Answer: I "meant" it is not objectively justifiable to knowingly and intentionally reach conclusions against all evidence known to you (they have misstated what I actually "claimed" here, btw), but once someone has formed a set of beliefs about God, by whatever processes, he would be subjectively and objectively justified in following God's orders as he hears them.

They asked me all these questions about what God can or can't do. Since I knew they wanted me to be consistent, I slid through. Thankfully, though, they didn't ask me if God could make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.