What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness

Alright! This is going to be a long argument on my part...DEFENSES"The central premise of Con's entire faith seems to be that it is "the most realistic theistic world view, being consistent with all evidence"."http://www.quickmeme.com..."I look forward to my opponent explaining why he believes it to be the most consistent view and what evidence he is referring to."I will now provide my reasons for believing that Religious Pluralism is the most realistic theistic world view by showing its consistency with theological, sociological, historical, and scientific evidence. C1) Theological EvidenceThere are many essential similarities between the theologies of all religions, including the omnibenevolence of God, the sinful nature of human beings, and the tenets of love for the self, love for others, and love for God. All of these ideas are present in some form or another in all major religions, and that alone is reason to believe that they are all somehow connected. Religious Pluralism explains this "connection" as all religions being interpretations of the same divine reality. C2) Sociological EvidenceOne sociological phenomenon that has been witnessed throughout all cultures and throughout all of history is that of spiritual experiences. Spiritual experiences are generally defined as instances of contact with the divine reality, including things like visions, sensations, miracles, and fulfilled prayers; they have been recorded since the beginning of human history by people of all religions. The only logical ways to interpret this is either that all such experiences are false and explained by materialistic means (i.e. atheism), or that the majority of these experiences are true and actually were caused by a single divine entity; Religious Pluralism opts for the latter (the only viable theistic option). But if only one religion were true, then only spiritual experiences/divine interventions associated with that one religion could be true, since all other religions are false, but such an assumption is completely baseless and irrational...Religious Pluralism is the best theistic explanation for the sociological phenomenon of spiritual experiences.C3) Historical EvidenceAccording to Religious Pluralism, religions represent humanity's attempts at understanding the divine reality based on encounters with it, and looking at the historical development of religions, we see a trend that is very consistent with that pluralistic view of religion. Animistic religions developed as humans evolved more intelligence, mainly serving to explain natural phenomena more than anything else. As human cultures grew to become more and more advanced, their religions also became more complex, turning into what we call polytheistic religions, with the personified phenomena of animism turning into human-like gods with actual personalities and mythological back stories. However, many of those religions did still recognize a supreme being of sorts, such as Brahma in Hindu mythology, Chukwu in Izbo mythology, and Ma'at in Egyptian mythology. Finally, a couple of truly monotheistic religions came about, concentrating solely on that on supreme being; they started very small and isolated but eventually split/broke off into several separate religions and spread throughout the majority of the world. It is only relatively recently (within the past 500 years) that unifying philosophies such as religious pluralism have come about through religions like Baha'ii, Sikhism, and Universalism.Basically, when we examine the historical development of religions, we see that no one religion really seems particularly special in relation to other religions; we see that religions have been building off each other as they have become more advanced, gradually getting closer and closer to the truth as humanity progresses. This is completely consistent with the pluralistic view on religion. C4) Scientific EvidenceBy not making absolute claims about God or his creation, Religious Pluralism is completely compatible with science. Pluralism views religion/spirituality as a study of the divine and science as the study of the workings of God's creation.Both aim to learn as much as possible about different aspects of reality. Science and Religion go hand in hand from a pluralistic perspective, which adds substantial credibility to it as a "realistic world view". OBJECTIONSMy opponent's only justification for the Bible being God's Word is that it is "perfect" (i.e. internally consistent, factually accurate) especially given the history of its composition.Thus, if I can show that the Bible is flawed, my opponent's entire case for the Bible's divinity falls apart. --Scientific Inaccuracy: a literal reading of the Bible dates the Earth's age at being less than 10,000 years, which is in direct contrast to the large amount of scientific evidence (namely, measuring radioactive decay) leading us to the conclusion that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Thus, the Bible contains blaring factual error within it, and cannot be God's word.--Historical Inaccuracy: the Bible tells the story of the Exodus, which should have been quite a memorable incident for the Egyptians considering all the death and damage that was supposedly involved... yet there is absolutely ZERO mention within Egyptian historical records of the biblical Exodus having happened. And the Egyptians were known for recording even their most humiliating defeats, including their conquest by the Hyksos. The fact that Exodus is never even mentioned leads us to believe that the accounts of the Exodus in the Bible are either heavily exaggerated or completely fictional. In either case, that shows that the Bible is not entirely factual, and thus cannot be God's word.--OT vs. NT: in the Old Testament, God is a ruthless tyrant, jealously having anyone and everyone who does not follow his rules killed off, yet in the New Testament, God seems to be a completely different deity, with his followers proclaiming that he IS love. The NT God is interested in reaching out to those who don't believe in him, whereas the OT God ordered the genocide of the Canaanites for no reason other than that they happened to be living in the Israelites' "promised land"... there is an obvious cognitive dissonance between how God is portrayed in these two parts of the Bible, showing that the Bible is indeed a flawed, man-made document. --Gospel Contradictions: there are an innumerable number of contradictions between the 4 books of the Gospels concerning various historical details, especially the sequence and locations of events. Unfortunately, there are too many for me to name them all, so I'll just provide a link with a comprehensive list of them all: http://infidels.org... This confirms the idea that the Bible is not internally consistent, as expected of a man-made document that was put together the way it was.My opponent spends much of his round attempting to show why the Quran and Vedas are probably not divinely inspired, and I agree with his conclusions regarding them. However, I have shown that the Bible is no different from them, being just as flawed, with no evident divine inspiration to it. Religious Pluralism maintains that no holy scripture can truly be considered the word of God, but that they are man-made writings; I have affirmed that to be true. CONCLUSIONS-- I have demonstrated why Religious Pluralism is the most realistic theistic world view by showing how it is consistent with all available theological, sociological, historical, and scientific evidence (thus fulfilling my BOP)-- I have shown that the Bible is inherently flawed, confirming Religious Pluralism's conception that no man-made scriptures can truly be called the "word of God" (which undermines the central premise of my opponent's faith).I hand the debate back over to Pro!