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

Pro makes an interesting claim. "I'm noticing a trend with my opponent, rhetoric is certainly being used in order to support his position. I'm (sic) find the substance of the arguments lacking however. " Pro, not I, has been abusing semantics to try to draw false conclusions from arguments that turn out to be non sequiturs. In order to fully refute these logical errors, I had to explain exactly what the flaws in his arguments were. Ultimately, it is his arguments that lack substance, not mine. Pro fails to make an argument against my point that Hebrews 11:1 is not a definition of faith. I am not changing my tune in any way. I merely explained how the verse describes important aspects of faith. Pro once again ignored the definition of Christian faith provided in round one, which by accepting the debate he agreed to. I have already explained that my citing of scientists was in an extremely specific context to provide an explanation of the historical role Christianity has played in science, not to make a direct case against the resolution. Let's look at pro's feeble final four arguments. I have explained in detail that Hebrews 11:1 is not a definition, a "fact" that the argument hinges on, so this is debunked easily. In his second claim, pro makes the same fallacious claim that I vigorously refuted in the second round: that just because science cannot answer a question, science and the method used to answer a question are at odds. This is ridiculous, and I have already rebutted this type of argument. The same reasoning holds for his third and fourth arguments, A3 and A4, so I won't waste more time repeating myself. Finally, pro made a massive mistake by failing to rebut my evidence for Christianity. Last round, I presented strong evidence of Christianity's truthfulness. Pro makes a feeble swipe at the Gospels, claiming their authorship is disputed. He provides no sources, however, whilst I did cite sources. Therefore, pro's argument is baseless and should be dismissed as such. He has basically dropped this argument by citing no evidence for his position. Therefore, I have proved that Christian faith is based on evidence. Now, I would like to summarize the previous three rounds and then close out the debate. Recall that the definition of reconcile. "To bring in to agreement or harmony, make compatible or consistent. " [1] Round One Con: I provided a definition of Christian faith, which pro proceeded to ignore throughout the debate, and established that the BOP is on pro. Pro: Pro made the argument that because science cannot address some claims from the Christian faith, they are not compatible and in harmony. Round Two Con: I explained the relationship between faith, science, and reason in a Christian worldview. I then exposed the fallacies contained in pro's arguments. I explained that faith and science are compatible and harmonious because they answer different questions. Pro: Pro tried a different approach to the debate. He claimed that Hebrews 11:1 was a complete definition of faith and because it didn't say faith was based on evidence, it must therefore not be. He then made several arguments based on this conclusion. Round Three Con: I strongly rebutted the claim that Hebrews 11:1 was a complete definition of faith. I noted the topic of the debate was not faith in general but Christian faith, which I had specifically defined in round one to avoid these word games. I gave powerful historical evidence for Christianity. I then reiterated my rebuttal from round 2 of pro's continued claims that because science cannot address some questions in Christian faith, they are not compatible. Pro: Pro failed to defend the fallacious claim that Hebrews 11:1 is not a complete definition, and refused to follow the definition of Christian faith I laid out in round one. He addresses my evidence from round 3 with unsourced, baseless claims, basically dropping the argument. He makes four feeble attempts to rehash arguments based on fallacies I have already rebutted. Sources: Pro cites key information without including sources, whilst I have always included extensive sourcing. Arguments: I have rebutted all of pro's claims, and he has the BOP. He has failed to answer all of my claims. Thank you all very much for this great debate. If you watched the debate, please vote. Also, a friendly reminder to pro not to make any new arguments. After the setup was ignored on another debate, I want to clear up any confusion. [2] Sources 1- . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2- . http://www.debate.org...