On balance, theism is more plausible than naturalism.

I will try to keep my summation brief, as for the most part I have been repeating the same things throughout the debate. To start with my opponent makes a number of erroneous charges against me, "Throughout the debate, Con has either misrepresented or misunderstood the majority of my case. " Pro has had ample opportunity to substantiate this misrepresentation or show these misunderstandings. Where he has stated this I have directly challenged him, I have been repeatedly ignored. The voter should bear this is mind. "After his arguments were refuted and in some cases corrected," The majority of my arguments have been ignored, none have been corrected. My opponent is simply typing this out of frustration and it is very bad form. "he ham-handedly attempted to shift the goalposts, claiming that I'd failed to establish certain premises that he himself previously conceded were sound" I have been forced to remind my opponent in a number of rounds where the goalposts actually are, as for the latter charge my opponent fails to mention where in the debate this occurred. "He has essentially ignored my contentions regarding reformed epistemology and the resurrection of Jesus and appears to have dropped his response to the Leibnizian cosmological argument. " I am still waiting for my opponent to supply arguments in favour of reformed epistemology, evidence in favour of the resurrection of Jesus, and for my opponent to react to my counter-argument against the cosmological argument. These allegations, unsourced and unfounded constitute simply appeal to the audience. They are nice little sound bites for the benefit of people who are not too interesting in making the effort to read the debate. Understandable as the debate has been of such poor quality. "Con claims that I've tried to change the premise of the debate, however, this is clearly not the case seeing as I originally outlined this contention in the first round. I'm not sure what Con thought my intentions were if I hadn't planned on using it; did I just include it as an interesting digression when I found I had extra characters remaining? Further, he claims I've merely mentioned reformed epistemology without showing how Christianity has warrant. This is ironic considering he actually includes the quote wherein I did just this! Because I have limited characters, I won't bother repeating what I already wrote in the first round. " The majority of this paragraph is fictional, I simply ask the reader to point out where my opponent supplied support for the position of Reformed epistemology, as he has failed to do so in four rounds of debate I rather think this should be ignored. Cosmological Argument. My opponent has failed to address my counter-argument from Round 1. His argument is simply to handwave away the problem of infinite regress by inventing a magical entity immune from the laws of logic and calling that entity God. I restate my objection from round 1 and remind voter that the cosmological argument has been refuted. The Teleological Argument My opponents argument rests on the assumption that there exists a problem of 'fine tuning' in the universal constants that allow this universe to exist in the way it does. It is an assumption that he supplies no evidence to support. The universe may appear unlikely, but that is an argument from ignorance and an argument from personal incredulity. I have quoted Dawkins who suggests that at this current stage it is not known if these variables are variable at all, my opponent has never progressed beyond this point. I restate my argument from round 1. Jesus My opponent states that, "Con claims that I have yet to prove Jesus was born of a virgin or that he is the son of God, which is completely irrelevant to the argument from the resurrection of Jesus that I'm attempting to establish. " However as my opponent has chosen to assert the truth of Christian theism, which was his choice to do so, it is required that he support the position of Christian theism, which hold these things to be fundamental truths. He can't have the wine without the grapes. My opponents argument is simply, "2000 years ago a body went missing, and some people wrote down that the guy had come back to life. Therefore Theism is correct, and no corroborative information is required, no other explanation is possible. The only possibility is that this man came back to life and that this proves God. " To repeat, my opponent has supplied no real evidence to support this. He has as much evidence to support this claim as he has to support the continued survival of Elvis. To summarise, 1: Reformed epistemology, my opponent has failed to provide any support for this position and has attempt to shift the premise of the debate to avoid that issue. This is therefore negated. 2: Cosmological Argument. My opponent has ignored my counter-argument. It is therefore negated. 3: Teological Argument. My opponent has again ignored my counter-argument. It is therefore negated. 4: Jesus, my opponent has failed to build even a basic case for the divinity of Christ and has side stepped the issue. It is therefore negated. My opponent has also failed to substantiate numerous claims of misrepresentation, misunderstanding or strawmanning despite being directly challenged to do so. Parts of his final round are indeed wholly fictitious. As my opponent had the burden of proof, it was simply my role to attack and undermine his arguments. as none of this arguments have survived I strongly urge a vote for CON. If the voters somehow disagree I simply ask that they leave an accurate and considered RFD.