Christianity

Thank you for that very good response pro, and I hope I can match that in this response. Rebuttal: “Pro makes an elaborate response that Christianity is not moral but it's pointless. Just because God is immoral, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. This is a red herring. God's morality is irrelevant to establishing God's existence.” My opponent is the one who’s actually pro, I’m actually con. My opponent bases their responses on the premise that my arguments were irrelevant and that they are ‘red herrings.’ I established that this debate was going to be on the topic Christianity, and not just the existence of God. In my introduction I said, “I do not intend to narrow down my debates to a particular category, but would prefer to argue points solidified under the topic of Christianity. In these contain; existence of God, morality of Christianity, effect on society, the Bible etc. I wish to debate topics under the category of the title of the debate, I apologize for not making this clear previously.” I stated that I wanted to argue under multiple categories of the topic Christianity. I said this in the beginning of my response, so my arguments are, in fact relevant. I never said we were only going to debate God’s existence; I clearly gave permission to various topics. Two-thirds of my opponent’s arguments were on this point, and I have thus defeated them. “Pro's 2nd argument is the bible is inconsistent and inaccurate so God cannot exist. This is another red herring. Just because the bible is inconsistent, it doesn't mean God cannot exist. Why? Because the bible might have been inspired by God but it was written by man who is inherently fallible. It's no surprise that there are mistakes. Such mistakes don't disprove the existence of God. It simply proves that man (or God) isn't perfect.” Again, with what I said earlier, we are not just arguing God’s existence, as a made clear in my last response, we are arguing Christianity. So in this argument, you said that the Bible having so many inconsistencies doesn’t disprove God. This does not actually present any points to argue against since you admitted that the Bible has many mistakes, and that it doesn’t relate to God’s Existence. In the next response I would suggest you present arguments that I can respond to. Moving on. Okay, so your introduction to your final argument is, “Pro's 3rd and final argument is that science has abundant proof and religion does not. However, the two are not mutually exclusive.” Based on this introduction, you would think that my opponent would present Christianity’s proof and back-up his claim that they are “not mutually exclusive.” However, as I read his/her argument, my opponent gave no proof or evidence to back-up his/her claim, only something like the; primitive people would be astounded at our modern day technologies and say they are magic. So therefore God can be somehow maybe super advanced technology. Your argument is false and doesn’t prove anything, only presents a thought. I suggest that my opponent provides evidence next time. I also specifically asked my opponent to provide proof of God’s existence, “I would expect my opponent to attempt to defeat these arguments using proof or evidence and to state his own arguments.” I asked my opponent of this last round, to provide evidence to his/her your claims, but my opponent has failed to do so. I ask my opponent to do so in their response. Conclusion: My opponent has failed to provide any proof or evidence to back up his/her claim, which I specifically requested in the last round. My opponents last two arguments were also mislead and therefore incorrect in that my opponent thought the whole debate was about God’s existence. I also made this clear last round. I hope my opponent can pick up next round and provide what is asked. To conclude, I have defeated all my opponents’ arguments while my opponent has attempted to by stating they are irrelevant, but as I established earlier, they are in fact very relevant. I thank my opponent for a very interesting debate; I wish you the best of luck, thank you! Sources that I used to Construct my argument: https://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.big-bang-theory.com... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...