Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true.

Let's review what's at stake here: Pro contends that because the Christian God exists as described in the Bible, it is feasible that the Christian God could inspire human authors to write perfect truths in the form of the Bible. Con's argument is that Pro's reasoning is circular, because it presupposes the existence and nature of God in order to prove the Bible true, which validates the Biblical description of God's existence and nature, and around and around we go. Pro has attempted to corroborate the existence and nature of the Christian God using extra-Biblical sources. I will show that Pro has failed to do so, making the Bible NOT NECESSARILY true. Con's Rebuttals: 1. Pro has in no way proved that what he refers to as the "first mover" must necessarily be "infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent. " It is only required that this entity existed when the first move took place, be powerful enough to make the first move, and present where the first move took place. This first move does not require omniscience. The first mover might well have perished after making the move, making it finite, as well. Even if Pro had proven this first mover to have all of these characteristics, he has not even attempted to prove that this first mover was indeed the Christian God, having each of the nine characteristics listed by Pro himself in round 1. 2. Pro's argument here relies on the assertion that "Everything has some purpose in the world. " In the first place, Pro has not proven this. In the second, this argument is comically narrow-minded as it does not consider things outside "the world. " Even if Pro could prove that everything has a purpose, he would then need to demonstrate how this corroborates the existence of a God who has each of the nine characteristics listed by Pro himself in round 1. 3. See #1 above. The first cause is not necessarily omnipotent, but powerful enough to cause the first cause. This argument does not even touch on infiniteness, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, or the other attributes listed by Pro in round 1. 4. Here, Pro makes a series of bold metaphysical assertions attempting to prove the omnipotence and infiniteness of the Christian God. Instead of wading chest deep into his unelaborated, uncorroborated discourse, I shall simply comment that even if this discourse somehow proves the omnipotence and infiniteness of the Christian God, it in no way proves the other characteristics listed by Pro in round 1 which are necessary attributes of the Christian God. For the Bible to be necessarily true, the characteristics listed by Pro in round 1 must be true, because 1) they are in the Bible so if they are false the Bible is not true and 2) a God with these characteristics is required for Biblical Inspiration to be feasible. Pro has unconvincingly tried to prove God's omnipotence, omnipresence, infiniteness, and omniscience. Pro has not even attempted to demonstrate the other 5 characteristics he claims God has, nor has he attempted to show that if God were able to perform divine inspiration that he indeed would be willing to do so. As for Pro's attempts at demonstrating the Christian God's omniscience by citing supposedly advanced scientific knowledge in the ancient scripture, let's remember that even if each of these were convincing arguments, each ONLY proves that God knew this specific information, NOT that he knows everything, and certainly NOT that he exhibits all 9 necessary characteristics listed by Pro himself in round 1. For good measure, I should point out a few of Pro's inconsistencies in this portion of the debate: 1. Pro demands empirical evidence, while he himself is prone to haphazardly drafting metaphysical treatises with absolutely no evidence. 2. Pro applies varying interpretations of the Bible without justification to serve his own argument: Referring to Psalm 104:5 (He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved) Pro says, "first of all, it was descriptive language used to describe a truth. " But regarding Isaiah 42:5 (Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out. .. ), Pro claims this as hard evidence that God revealed in Biblical times that the universe is expanding. 3. Pro asserts at the beginning of round 2 that "for the purposes of this debate the entirety of Christian beliefs about God must be true, that God has all of the attributes listed in Round 1. " He then proceeds to spend the entire debate attempting to prove that God exhibits various attributes on the list. If Pro thinks we should operate under the presupposition that God has these attributes, why is he not operating under this presupposition? Allow me to point out the elephant in the room: Pro has left my round 1 argument completely untouched. He has failed to escape the circular reasoning of Biblical Inspiration, thus leaving room for the possibility that the Bible is not true. The resolution remains negated.