Resolved: Buddhism is more valid than Christianity

Since this debate is talking about one religions validity over another I suppose I can share the burden of proof in showing that Christianity is more valid than Buddhism. To make it clear I will be arguing from Catholic perspective. Also traditionally Affirmative sets the definitions. Neg. can refute if he wants to. Resolved: Buddhism is more valid than Christianity, I negate the preceding resolution because of the following reasons: Contention 1; Reincarnation is incompatible with a growing population, Contention 2; Buddhism is a non theistic by nature but most likely there is a creator deity Contention 3; Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person who at the very least was remarkable if not the Son of God. Contention 1: Lets define reincarnation. Reincarnation: the rebirth of a soul in another body.(Oxford) My argument contends that a growing population is violation of any type of reincarnation that can be conceived unless it relies upon Creators creating new souls even though that defeats the purpose. Buddhism holds that reincarnation is true and if this is true than a body is inhabits one soul and the next body is inhabited by a different soul. Let us suggest that reincarnation is true, what happened with the first people to have souls? Did the child of the first people not have soul? Does one human have to die so that one may live? One could attempt argue that animal spirits may fill this role but we must consider that animals have far less mental compassity, but if the purpose of life is to "One thing I teach: suffering and the end of suffering. It is just Ill and the ceasing of Ill that I proclaim." --The Buddha So if this is true, can animals comprehend pain? We must remember that : Are animals capable of feeling emotional pain? Humans can certainly feel pain without physical damage – after the loss of a loved one, or the break-up of a relationship, for example. Some scientists suggest that only primates and humans can feel emotional pain, as they are the only animals that have a neocortex – the ‘thinking area' of the cortex found only in mammals. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk... Suffering is emotional as well as physical. But how could a animal escape suffering if they cannot comprehend this. My next part of the argument says that a Creator could cause this but it would defeat the purpose. Reincarnation or being born in another body is only possible if a Creator to fill the souls that are filled when a population increases but this defeats the concept because that means that it wouldn't be necessary for reincarnated souls to exist if a creator created them. My second contention is a God most likely exists. I will contend this in 2 parts: The origin of the universe requires this and also the existence of Objective morality proves this as well. I will use pure science to show that a God exists(btw I will assume the position of Okeams Razor to reject the notion that more than one God exists). E=MC^2 Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, Einstein theory of relativity space=time or space and time are the same thing(this is why the universe expands). The Law of Conservation of Energy:The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore the sum of all the energies in the system(such as the universe) is a constant. The most certain and universal of all scientific principles is that of causality. Being that this is true we can make a following conclusion: 1.Energy couldn't have been created by the universe(because that would violate its own laws) 2.Space-time started at the same time therefore when energy appeared space-time must have started. 3.Causality is relies on the fact everything(IN THIS UNIVERSE) must have a cause 4. If the preceding arguments are true than the universe must have been created by a outside source While we may argue that this doesn't prove a 'God' it still shows evidence for the existence of a cause for the universe and that is outside the universe. The existence of objective morality concludes that a being outside the universe must exist for the following reasons(remember I said that Objective morality concludes a God not the other way around): "Social pressures provide no basis for objective morality as they change with time and place. Any reader in social science and social constructionism will easily conclude the relative nature of social pressures. So without God there can be no rational basis for morality. God as a concept is not subjective therefore having God as basis for morality makes them binding and objective. The following statement by Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, correctly concludes, "Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning." Logical coherence of this argument 1. God is the only conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity 2. Atheism doesn't believe in God 3. Therefore according to the atheistic view morals are subjective Another way of putting it is as follows: 1. If God does not exist, objective morals do not exist 2. Objective morals do exist 3. Therefore God exists For the record I just liked the way he worded this I am not appealing to authority. My third contention is that Jesus most likely existed and if he did exist then he was a remarkable man. It should be said even if we can prove Buddha existed, he never is claimed to be a supernatural being therefore has no relevance in this debate. " It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus. Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following: The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians" (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44). Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." There are many more sources but the amount of characters remaining is limiting me, Please vote for negative today.