There is a possibility that Obama could be Satan.

*claps*And Mikal has done it again!Ultimately, I think we need to take this resolution on the preponderance of evidence, since the debate has begun without a clear buren of proof, in spite of the fact that we cannot hope to prove a negative. My main case is that it is impossible for Obama to be Satan because it is impossible for Satan to exist, and thus the Bible is not a credible source. Moreover, I will argue that Mikal does have the burden of proof to show that it is at least possible for President Obama to be Satan. First, I'm going to borrow a bit from one of Mikal's previous debates on God. I hope he doesn't mind! Russel's Teapot "Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."Following from this, it is clear that the burden of proof is not on me to prove a negative, but for Mikal to prove a positive -- that there is indeed a possibility that Satan exists. In the process, he must prove that there is a God, that the Bible is a credible source that hasn't been translated several times over, and there have been bible scholars who have argued that as much as half of the New Testament -- the part that Christians like -- has been forged (2). In fact, parts of the New Testament were not even written by the apostles, so this source is not the least bit credible (3). Occam's RazorThis pirnciple can be distilled in one sentence: "When you have two competitng theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better" (4) Again, this shifts the burden of proof to Pro -- his theory that Obama could be Satan is overly complex and requires that we address a whole host of questions: Why is he a Christian? Why does he begin every day with a devotional? Why did he attend a prayer breakfast? Why does he end every one of his speeches with "God Bless America," when Satan himself -- if he ever existed (I'm not sure if you read Paradise Lost) -- would never lower himself to do that. It's impossible. In Paradise Lost, even when there was no hope that Satan could ever overtake God, he still refused to give in and praise him. Thus, his theory is overly complex and he must provide genuine evidence. Even the theory that a God exists is an application of this theory, for we cannot prove it. Carl Sagan remarked that “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” So the question becomes this: who created God so that he could create Satan? Were God and Satan created at the same time? Does this extend ad infinitum?ConclusionThe preponderence of evidence does not fulfill Mikal's case. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_teapot2. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com...3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...4. http://math.ucr.edu...;