A Challenge To Non-Christians!

Outline:Metaphysical Naturalism:Pro cannot negate my offensive. We could observe evidence of the supernatural using science but we don't. This is very problematic. We do observe evidence of electrons, and our practical use of comple electric machines indicates that their existence is highly likely.Prophecies:All the prophecies are vauge. Many of them are dropped because there is no eviden (virgin birth). Others are obvious (Jews being persecuted) and could have easily been predicted. Pro claims to have 300 prophecies but presents only a few. If the cream of the crop are this weak it is doubtful the others are better. An inspired book would be expected to be a lot more accurate and specific.The piercing prophecies is vague and does not refer to crucifiction as it was commonly practiced.Bad Greek:Confusion about the Bible makes it difficult for us to accept it's inerrancy. The rope-needle analogy makes more sense and it would be a bad decision to include such a specific reference anyway. The fact that we can even debate this shows that the doctrine of inerrancy is too questionable to be considered overriding evidence.Simulation Argument:Dropped. A computer simulation provides a better explanation for why the universe would be fine-tuned if it was.Probablity:Pro's argument relies on one condition for he determination of universal constants (low reptition and high variability). There are infinitely many possibilities and we cannot determine the actual conditions. However, modern physics points to little or no variability in the constants.Problem of Evil:Either dropped or not understood. The suffering in the world does not fit with an all-loving God. It's not about what I want, it's about the state of things. The world sucks and if God cares about us he is not doing a good job. Pro does not counter this point.Qu'ran:It is written better than the Bible and thus has a better claim to inerrancy. Vague prophecies you can prove happened are better than specific ones that you can't (virgin birth). The Qu'ran is the best literary work in the Arabic cannon. The Bible is not even close to the best literary work in the Western cannon. Why did God make Shakespeare a better writer than himself?Voting concerns:I did not post links to sources, but I specifically cited evidence in my videos. My arguments were mostly based on philosophy or well known scientific facts. I gave credit where credit was due and any scientific claim could be backed by Google or a quick look at a textbook.Pro's arguments were pretty soundly demolished or severally mitigated. The fine-tuning argument has been refuted and Pro did not even understand the point of the objection. The Qu'ran's better claim to inerrancy means that the evidence is against the God of the Bible being God if he exists. Prophecies don't necessarily affirm God, and they aren't nearly as strong as they should be if a work is inspired. God can't even inspire more accurate knowledge of the universe than ancient people could figure out with primative math.My offense is not rebutted and carries cleanly through. He cannot refute the methodological naturalism argument or the Problem of Evil, and he does not even attempt to. Both of these arguments point to the fact that it is very unlikely that God exists.Based on this, you should vote arguments to Con and tied the other voting points. Thanks to SkepticsAskHere and to readers for their judgement. Good night.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...