The Bible is Perfect.

Oh yes, personally I do agree, but not within the paradigms of the debate. I thus, must, debate the point. I just believed that the debate was a flop, as you were saying. Such underhand tactics are effective, but unappreciated. I should of left a comment in the debate. However, although the Bible does not line up with history on a historical level, con has set me limits in regards to accepting the Bible as Perfect and I, must, therefore, regard it as such, stating that Biblical history was liable to be changed by God. I must also note, that this is not by my own standards, as con is completely missing the point of the motion, by the points I have already argued. Empirical evidence, by the Bible's standards, can be changed by God, because of historical discrepancies. Penzias and Wilson have little say against him. In addition, historical evidence is very subject to human flaws, so the historical evidence that con has mentioned is also subject to this flaw. The pursuit of history is making sense of these flaws with its differing academic opinions and, thus, there is always an inherent doubt in it. Breaking the laws of science and existence are within God's paradigms, so it cannot be explained with empirical fact. Again, con has committed the fallacy that I base this on my own belief, when in reality, I am basing it on the Holy Book that con has provided me as my only source of truth. I must assume it is perfect or else the debate is flawed and from its perfection I must assume that God can do anything. Although empirical and historical evidence are valid, it could only be in the context that they support my point and any discrepancy is God's work. Again, this is because I must assume that the Bible is the truth and in that truth we see that God has already proved his divinity with miracles, such as virgin births, the plagues of Egypt, parting the Red Sea with the force essentially. The list goes on, turning water into wine and magicking up fish, rising from the dead, ascending into heaven. All these cannot be explained by science, although a few could be rationalised. Gamorrah and Sodom being another. What we can see is that under the premise of the motion, is that the Bible is perfect for the fact that, if its God is all powerful, many of this empirical knowledge could be 'godified'. In closing, I would like the voters to note that this is not a theological debate. This is con trying to arrogantly display his atheistic beliefs, to the effect of not considering a motion on its own theological terms. Only by empirical and historical evidence, which although is a logical route, can easily be refuted by an all powerful God. The main fallacy is that he makes the assumption that God is not of its own definition and is fully aware of the miracles what the Bible portends. On this basis alone, God can change reality so that their are discrepancies. I would of wondered if con would question as to why God would do this, but it is merely because he is launching his argument from his own subjective point of view and not actually considering the motion as a whole. Indeed, he asks for evidence of God. Am I to assume that God does not exist and yet consider the Bible to be perfect? Con's stupefying argument implies this and although he sets the paradigms that the Bible must follow empirical and historical evidence, he will not acknowledge that these paradigms could easily be hurdled by an all powerful God. The only valid argument con can make is my concessions in round 2, but these were not in the regards of the debate, but in the mistake that it was a flop. I shall keep this in mind. If Con would like to debate me on the existence of God, I would happily debate him.