The One True God as Described in the Christian Bible Exists

My opponent after posting added 2 additional points in the comments, section, comment 16. I grant their inclusion in his round 4 response. However even including those, there is virtually nothing left of my opponent’s case to argue against. From round 2 on, he’s simply not addressed the points raised in this debate. At the end of round 3 the case demolished. One of the few remaining points was the bible verses. After asking for 3 rounds for some evidence tying those bible verses to their supposed purpose my opponent has refused to provide any evidence. Since new arguments are banned in the 5th round I’m going to provide negative evidence on the bible verses. This is essentially a weaker negative case than the primary case I ran in rounds 1-3, but those arguments haven’t refuted or even addressed. Hebrews 1:3 -- Is a simple comment that Jesus sustains the universe. It makes no claims about what sort of universe is sustained. Numbers 23:19 -- Says that God doesn’t lie, but doesn’t say anything about what’s he’s said. To make of this verse you would need a divine claim of uniformity, while as argued in round 2 we actually have frequent divine claims of catastrophism. Genesis 8:22 -- Comes during a catastrophism story (the flood). Further it contradicts science not supports it. We know that “seedtime and harvest” will cease while the earth remains as the sun heats up from consuming its hydrogen. ___ The logic verses there is still an unaddressed argument from round 1as to which if any logics are supported? Does this biblical normative logic include axiom of choice (http://en.wikipedia.org...) or its opposite? Does it include the continuum hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org...) or its opposite? These sorts of question immediately make it clear how inferior this biblical logic is to the modern scientific one. The biblical logic represents a sort of naive approach to non contradiction and deduction not thousands of years of deep consideration, The verses used to support this logic theme also are problematic. Eph 5:1 -- Asks us to imitate God doesn’t say imitate in what.2Tim 2:13 -- Implies non contradiction (grant that one)John 14:6 -- Doesn’t give any rule of logic. If anything it seems to assert a connection between a being and truth which violate normative logic per Gödel's incompleteness theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Heb 1:3 and Numbers 23:19 addressed above. ____ In round 4 there are some 1 line “it too / is not” type arguments. For example the idea that we haven’t presented a case justifying how or why the logics derived empirically work. First off, note there is no proof of a “how” for the positive case at all. However, the atheist case does have this in round 1 but it is brief, the discussion of formal symbol manipulation. I’ll expand here. The first complete theory of computation for a logic was in Principia Mathematica (http://tinyurl.com...). Computational theory for a normative logic is exactly what was described in part 1, the logical statements are evaluated as pure symbol pushing. The true/false assignment, the environment of execution, is assigned based on previously proven results and empirical observation. I’m not going to reproduce a 3 volume set on every detail of how to bootstrap a logic, but an example may suffice.Assume that: one wants to evaluate the truth of the statement “all of CD-Host’s dogs are brown”.This decomposes to: And over the set of all CD-Host’s dogs where: Dog_i is brownThat’s a formal symbol manipulation. At that point whether one can go further depends on the “environment of execution”. For example if we have another statement: CD-Host has 2 dogs chloe and duck then the statement becomes(duck is brown) and (chloe is brown)etc... The idea that the bible has any particular insight or material on computation is of course false. The lead author of Principia was Bertrand Russell an atheist and promoter of atheism. The 2nd author was Alfred North Whitehead, an agnostic, and the book’s central idea of ow to consider a logic was based on earlier work from GH Hardy, an atheist. As for why it works, that one is easy by construction. The logic chosen was the one what produced empirically verifiable results. If any logic is going to work its going to have to be one of those logics. The logic that there are logics that work comes from experience using logic successfully. It was constructed to work. I fail to see how random biblical quotes come close to the counter position. As for uniformity. I think I addressed this in part3. It is not me who is equivocating, nor has any evidence been given that uniformity as defined is a foundation for science. Nor have the counter examples like double slit been addressed. As for the argument for uniformity, in so far as it holds comes from empirically verification. As for the objective morality objection my opponent hasn’t presented any advantages of biblical morality over a utilitarian morality. By definition a utilitarian morality is more useful to the society. If he suspects his morality is better he: a) Needs to show itb) Needs to prove that it’s more useful aspects would not result in it being seen as the utilitarian morality. If something other than utility is going to be the standard that needs to be argued.