Mormonism is Irrational and Flawed

Hello all. In this final round, I will give a last response to my opponent's statements in the last round, and then I shall deliver my closing statement.RebuttalR1: Mormonism's Flaws Justify the ResolutionMy opponent fails to realize that Mormonism's flaws makes it unreasonable to believe in. I equate believing in Mormonism to believing in the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny, in that there is no reason to believe in it, because it is so utterly implausible.I deny Con's arguments against my fulfillment of the burden, as Con has brought up arguments which are clearly irrational and illogical to complement the Mormon faith, rather than giving the religion logical grounds (I will show this below). All of Con's responses that I have accepted are all purely hypothetical (like in response to scripture) and not provided alongside evidence or reason, so besides claiming such, there is not much else I can say.R2: Rational Inquiry Cannot be Based on Supernatural BeliefI deny this premise because claiming rational inquiry on the basis of irrational belief is unreasonable. My opponent claims a possibility of rational inquiry in asking a supernatural being (supposedly above human perception) if something within human perception is true. However, we can already see by the existence of various problems of religious faith that this belief in the supernatural is wholly irrational.In response to my opponent's denial of my proposal of the problem of evil and the problem of omnipotence, I can only assume that my opponent does not know of the existence of these problems. In short, the problem of evil presents a contradiction between the existence of evil (specifically unjustified evils, beyond justification by free will, universal balance, etc.) and the existence of an all-powerful, wholly benevolent deity. The problem of omnipotence can be presented by asking a simple question: can God create a rock which is too heavy for him to carry? Both answering in the positive and negative proves that power cannot be absolute.R3: Exactly, it is Beyond Human ComprehensionIn truth, my opponent concedes this debate by claiming that God is above human comprehension. If something is beyond human comprehension, there is no reason within human comprehension to believe in its existence. This all goes back to my argument of blind faith- Mormonism is irrational to believe in. R4: Scripture is Still ImplausibleI assert that we cannot prove the logic in any scripture, as we have absolutely no proof of its plausibility. By denying my assertions on the logical improbabilities of scripture, my opponent still fails to provide a valid reason why this scripture is rational to believe in. BoP is evidently shared in this case, and Con has not provided, while I have still provided logically-based claims.R5: Scientific Finding is Not Personal BiasMy opponent assigns personal bias to a scientific claim. Science is the understanding of the world through human comprehension, while the Mormon faith, as my opponent has already admitted, is beyond human understanding. Therefore, the Mormon faith is unscientific, and furthermore, is void of logic and reason, as both logic and reason are realms of the human perception of the world.But besides this clear void, this equation is still invalid. Scientific claims, which I have put forth in the form of DNA evidence, are rooted in natural laws which are universally applicable no matter the proponent. Therefore, I cannot be biased in bringing up scientific evidence.R6: Linguistic Analysis is Not Applicable to ContentLinguistic analysis still does not prove the rationality in believing in a higher power. Proving the Book of Mormon's linguistic properties as veritable does not prove the plausibility of the content. Even if this linguistic analysis somehow supports the legitimacy of the origins of the Book of Mormon, my opponent still fails to provide logical claims to support the content within the texts.R7: On the Alleged Creation of a New ArgumentI would argue that this was bringing up evidence to support my denial of the BoM's invalidity, not making an entirely separate argument. I will assume this argument is conceded, as my opponent has not provided a response. R8: On the Claim to ProphecyMy opponent utilizes an excerpt from a Mormon organization, which is clearly biased.It is evident that there were undeniable tensions between the North and South which peaked in 1832 with the crisis. These tensions carried through to the Civil War. I am in no way claiming that a civil war was obviously imminent in 1832, and I am impressed if Joseph Smith guessed right in this case, if these claims are true. But saying this is a prophecy, and therefore claiming Joseph as a divine prophet, is highly irrational. If I guessed that a third world war would begin in 2025, and I was right, I am still not a prophet, even if I claim to be.-------------------Closing StatementI ask that you all kneel, and pray to a supernatural being. Whichever you prefer, but do so as truthfully and legitimately as you can. Ask if the next 100 times you flip a coin, every time, the coin will land on the heads side. Then, once you have finished your prayer, flip a coin 100 times. I can almost guarantee that your wishes will not be fulfilled.Some of you may deny the logic in believing that a coin will land on heads 100 times in a row anyway. Great. However, some remain, and try to logically support the belief that if one truly has faith in a supernatural being, a coin will land on heads 100 times in a row. Even one-hundred thousand, or perhaps infinitely many.As an atheist, I can dismiss this as irrational belief. Why? Because of statistics. Because of logic. Because of science. Because of human understanding and human perception. The theist might shout, "Well, there is still the possibility!", or, "You can't prove that this won't happen!". I can simply respond that I have a far better chance of being right.Sorry, you may have prayed to the wrong being, as logically, there can only really be one that is true, if any. Hindus believe their world view is universally true. Buddhists think the same. Mormons also think the same. But, in reality, we can see that it is implausible to have faith in these institutionalized religions in general; not one can really trump the others.Belief in the supernatural is blind faith, as my opponent has evidently conceded in his claim of religion being outside the sphere of human understanding. Mormonism is filled with flaws- from logical improbabilites in scripture, to logical voids in the Mormon idea of infinite regression of deities. In some places, Mormon belief is even unscientific, with scientific evidence showing the lack of support for the Mormon theory on the origin of Native American tribes. In all, however hard my opponent tries to justify this faith, Mormonism still stands as implausible, irrational and highly flawed, akin to the rest of today's religions.I thank you all for reading, and I ask a vote in favor of Pro. I would like to extend my gratitude to my opponent as well; this has been a fantastic debate.