The Bible is sufficient evidence for the belief in Chrisitanity

Hi. I also appreciate a good debate and I did my best so this one in good too. In order for a debate to be good, both opponents have to speak about the same thing. As much as I hate definitions, they help a debate be clear and fair. For an extreme example, see what happens if we define Christianity as: the belief in sacrificing infants. The debate would not be very fair or relevant. In this debate, Con was a little more subtle, but the effects of his definition remain the same – literally believing in the Bible is such a non-sense that it becomes a straw-man for this debate; Con confuses Church and religion. On the other hand I put forth a definition that reflects the view of the majority of Americans – Con accepted this proof and tried to circumvent it by assuming auxiliary reasons for the belief in God. While he brought evidence that some people have auxiliary motives to believe in God, he did not show that they were the majority. Furthermore, he did this in the last round so I will stop debating this issue here since in the last round no new arguments should be brought forth. If language is for communication then it must address the many. My definition of the Bible – fables and moral teachings – stands. Sufficient If we accept the above definition then the debate comes down to proving the Bible is sufficient. On this point I have showed that logic is not enough as an instrument. Con then brought forth a definition of sufficient – "Sufficient" is defined by a quantity that can fulfill a need or requirement but without being abundant; enough or ample that was actually quite close to mine. When I showed that the Bible fulfils this definition, Con changed this definition (by adding words) – THIS is called moving the goal post: a quantity [of evidence] that can fulfill a need or requirement [to believe in Christianity] but without being abundant; enough or ample [evidence to believe in Christianity], However, not even this definition does much to help Con's case, as my method proves the Bible to fulfill this last definition too. I stated that we must manage in reality with less than perfect information. I then presented the „satisficing" theory and applied to the Bible. Con had two options: disprove the theory OR show that it does not apply to the Bible. He relied exclusively on one of his definitions of sufficient. I have proved that this is a rational theory to apply because it fits the purpose of dealing with reality. To this point it is proven that: A)We have little to no knowledge about some fundamental things (Creation, answer to life and everything (it is not 42) etc. ) B)We have to lower our standards in order to achieve a useful result in a reasonable time C)The Bible (see definitions above) offers good answers these questions Given A, B and C we can accept the Bible as sufficient evidence for the belief in God (actually Christianity from the title, but God from Con's responses – THIS is called shifting the debate) without being irrational. Double standards (Science vs. Bible) All I have asked for is for the same treatment as science. Con stated that this is irrelevant for the debate. I have showed in rounds 2, 3 and 4 that this is relevant. If Con argues for the scientific method than he must believe it is valid for some reason. Whatever the reason, this means that Con's position makes science relevant to this debate. Once I showed that even for statements like 1+1=2 one must believe in axioms/postulates, Con ignored this area asserting that it is irrelevant. Why did he debate it in the first place if it is irrelevant? I only became irrelevant once Con had no more answers. Applying the same standards we see that: 1 one must BELIEVE in axioms in order for Science to work – just like the Bible 2 one does not dismiss Science once it finds errors in it rather corrects it – just like the peoples views on the Bible (see Galup survey that Con accepted as proof) From 1 and 2 it stands clear that in order to be intellectually honest we must accept the same treatment for the Bible and: 1 not dismiss it for minor errors 2 allow it (or peoples interpretation of it, if the Church is so stubborn) to evolve Therefore I should win this debate because I demonstrated a fair definition and applied it to the Bible. I used the satisficing theory and showed that the Bible satisfies this criteria. The argument about double standards which con failed to address further supports the satisficing argument by defending the Bible. Voters I am sure that for many voters my position is rather strange in defending the Bible as fundament for belief. I am also sure that many of the voters disagree with my position and would be able to bring very strong arguments against it. But this is another debate. In this debate Con failed to bring strong arguments against my case.