Resolved: Christian Faith and Reason and/or Science are Fundamentally Irreconcilable.

Thank you to Con for what has been an enjoyable debate. I would like to say I believe our verdict is in. In this round I will put forward no new arguments, as agreed upon. I will evaluate Con's last response, pull from previous rounds and finish with a conclusion. Rebuttal to Con's round 3 We have caught Con back tracking on what he labels as faith. I pointed this out in the previous round. We have more examples in this round. Round 4, Con speaking, "Pro fails to make an argument against my point that Hebrews11:1 is not a definition of faith." I can't believe Con actually says this. This is simply dishonest. Con's round 2 opening argument, his first two small paragraphs are merely a greeting, wishing of good luck and opening sentence. The following sentence is the opening to his argument, Con speaking, "The Bible explains that "faith is the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1) (Con continues) In other words, faith is trust in the special revelation God has provided and in our salvation in Christ." Back to Con's Round 4 statement, "Pro fails to make an argument against my point that Hebrews 11:1 is not a definition of faith." Are you kidding me? This is an outright lie by Con. As we can see, Con submitted the definition. The passage says, "faith is." Con supported the definition. Now he's trying to say that isn't how he defined faith. Yes that is how you defined faith. Further problem for Con here, R4, Con says I defined faith in round one. Lets look at that. Con R1, "Christian Faith-the belief...the belief...the belief...." Faith is belief. In R1, Con refers to faith as belief three times in one sentence. Con has clearly put himself in a hole in how he defines faith. He has defined it as a hollow practice. It isn't supported by anything. Con's R1 definition, faith is belief. Con's R2 definition, pulled from Hebrews 11:1, faith is confidence, hope and assurance of what is not see. I can believe anything. I can be confident in anything. I can hope for anything. I can have assurance for anything not seen. Faith is nothing like science or reason. Con is scrambling on his definition of faith because it has been shown in this debate that it is void of substance. Summary The Proposition is that the Christian Faith and reason/science is irreconcilable. This has been proved in the debate. The word reconcile means to bring together. So for the proposition to be false, Con's position, we must be able to bring them together. I've demonstrated that this cannot be done. In my round three arguments, I presented four arguments that show that science and the Christian Faith are irreconcilable. I stated that if Con could directly demonstrate that each one is wrong then he wins the debate. We can see that in Con's round 4 argument, he didn't tackle any of them. All four remain unchallenged by Con. Therefore the proposition holds and Pro has proved his case. From round 3 R3-A1. I can use faith to arrive at contradictory claims. Round 4 Con didn't refute R3-A2. Jesus rose from the dead. I showed how science cannot be reconciled with this claim. Round 4 Con didn't refute R3-A3. The Christian god exists. I showed how science cannot be reconciled with this claim. Round 4 Con didn't refute R3-A4. Jesus is the son of God. I showed how science cannot be reconciled with this claim. Round 4 Con didn't refute As I concluded round 3, I told Con all he needs to do is demonstrate directly how these arguments are false and that science could be reconciled with the claims. He didn't even tackle them. Why? Because the proposition is correct. Clearly science cannot comment on the claim Jesus was/is the son of God. This seems patently obvious. Of course science cannot comment on this. Con didn't tackle the arguments because they are sound. The proposition is confirmed. Con confirms the proposition in round 2, "Science answers questions about the natural world; faith answers questions about the spiritual world." Reconcile means bring together. Con acknowledges a divide. We have our verdict. Pro's arguments for the proposition remains unrefuted. Con acknowledges a divide on his own accord. Conclusion, IRRECONCILABLE. Thank you Con for what has been an enjoyable debate. Maybe we can tee it up again on another topic.