On balance, theism is more plausible than naturalism.

Throughout the debate, Con has either misrepresented or misunderstood the majority of my case. After his arguments were refuted and in some cases corrected, he ham-handedly attempted to shift the goalposts, claiming that I'd failed to establish certain premises that he himself previously conceded were sound, or that I'd failed to be "hoist by the petard of the burden of proof." This has been most evident in his objection to the teleological argument. 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. ============ Reformed epistemology ============ 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. Building the case for a particular epistemological view generally involves two steps: defending the proposed theory against attacks and showing how other alternatives fall short. Because Con has neither attacked reformed epistemology nor proposed an alternative, my job has been fairly easy. If Con wanted to argue for some form of verificationism, he should have done so in the first round. Similarly, if he had any objections to foundationalism, reliabilism, or externalism, he should have brought them up earlier. At this point, I won't be able to respond to anything he says. If he attempts to introduce new arguments, they should be disregarded by the voters. Con's failure to understand and properly address my contention can't be held against me. My point stands: Christianity is, in the absence of defeaters, a warranted foundational belief. ============ Cosmological argument ============ Con has only raised one real objection: the regress problem, which I've already explained ad nauseum does not defeat this type of cosmological argument. An offshoot of this is his claim that the necessary fact posited as the explanation for the BCCF can't be a volitional agent because "a volitional agent is merely another contingent fact, the product of existing contingent facts." This, however, is not an argument but a bare assertion, and a ridiculous one at that. Yes, some volitional agents exist contingently, however, there is nothing prima facie incoherent or contradictory about the notion of a necessary being. I've given arguments; Con hasn't. Point Pro. ============ Teleological argument ============ Con's sole objection has been that I've failed to establish that F is unlikely on naturalism, even though he seemed to acknowledge this difficulty earlier when he brought up the multiverse scenario to account for it. Later on, he likened the values of the fundamental constants of physics to the circumference of a circle, however, this is a faulty analogy inasmuch as the value of pi is not only a necessary truth, but an analytic logical truth.[1] The laws of physics, by contrast, are hypothetically compatible with any number of possible values of the specific constants.[2] To use just one of literally dozens of examples, the law of gravity, represented by F = Gm1m2/r2 could differ in the value of "G" by as much as a factor of 1040, or 10 thousand billion, billion, billion, billion.[3] In order for stars to form, the strength of G can't deviate in it's ratio from unity with electromagnetism by more than a factor of 3,000, meaning that it must be finely tuned to the degree of 3.3 x 1036.[4] Moreover, this is only one of many constants with which the strength of gravity must be carefully calibrated, such as the speed of light, electron and proton mass, the nuclear strong and weak forces, etc.[5] Finally, even if we grant that the various physical constants are fixed in their values, this still fails to account for certain elements of inflationary cosmology, such as the such as the mass density of the early universe, the strength of the explosion of the Big Bang, the strength of the density perturbations that led to star formation, the ratio of radiation density to the density of normal matter, and the incredibly low level of entropy.[6] ============ The historical Jesus ============ 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. This is really a very simple argument. We know that Jesus was crucified by the Roman Empire and subsequently buried in a tomb. William Lane Craig explains: "the burial account is part of Mark's source material for the story of Jesus' Passion. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and dates to within several years of Jesus' crucifixion. Moreover, Paul in his first letter to the church of Corinth also cites an extremely early source for Jesus' burial which most scholars date to within a few years or even months of the crucifixion."[7] The tomb was subsequently found empty. Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, writes: "by far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."[8] Indeed, it's obvious why. If this were a falsehood, the Jewish authorities could have easily dispelled the rumor by producing Jesus' body. Following the discovery of the empty tomb, Jesus made numerous post-mortem appearances, both to small groups of individuals and to large crowds. As stated in the first round, this is acknowledged even by skeptics. All of this evidence points to the resurrection. Virtually none of these facts are contested by New Testament historians, including skeptics such as Gregory Cavin and Gert Lï¿½demann. Rather, these historians challenge the interpretation of these facts. For example, Lï¿½demann believes the disciples hallucinated Jesus' post-mortem appearances. Con has not actually defended any of these theories, so my interpretation should be accepted by default. I had expected to develop this part of my case in much greater depth, but it has gone virtually unchallenged, so I've had little to add. I think Con is getting hung up about the low prior probability of a miracle, however, what we are concerned about when investigating the past is the posterior probability of a miracle given the supporting evidence. || CONCLUSION || Con has failed to either attack reformed epistemology or build a constructive case for an alternative epistemological viewpoint. As such, I should win the debate on the strength of this argument alone. Con has also largely dropped his objection to the cosmological argument and his response to the evidential teleogical argument clearly falls short. He has not given any reason to doubt the facts I've established surrounding Jesus' crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, nor has he produced a viable explanation for them. At this point in the debate, it's to late for him to rectify this. The resolution is affirmed. I strongly urge a Pro vote. References: http://tinyurl.com...