On balance, theism is more plausible than naturalism.

Implicit in all of Con's arguments, and specifically in his stubborn refusal to address the case I've built for reformed epistemology, is the assumption that theism is a priori less plausible than naturalism. However, this is an instance of begging the question." 1: My opponent has not made a case for reformed epistemology, but has merely referenced it. 2: I have not assumed that theism is a priori less plausible than naturalism, rather it is my opponent who has set up the debate with the burden of proof requiring him to establish that theism is more plausible than naturalism. "I think Con has misunderstood this argument. The point of reformed epistemology is not merely to establish theism as equally plausible in comparison to naturalism, but as more plausible." This is a misrepresentation, no where have I claimed this. Rather I have simply pointed out that the burden of proof on my opponent requires that he establish theism as more plausible than naturalism. He has thus far failed to do this. "As I explained in the first round: "reformed epistemology is an externalist form of reliabilism that holds beliefs have warrant just in case they are produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties. We know that on naturalism, unguided evolution shaped our brains *not* for the purpose of producing true beliefs, but as a mere tool to aid survival and reproduction. By contrast, on theism there is good reason to think that our minds *were* designed to produce sound understanding." This is a hard epistemic defeater for naturalism." Yet my opponent never goes into detail as to how the theistic explanation holds more warrant than the naturalist one. He has given me nothing to refute here. "As I've stated several times, in order to win this contention, Con would have to either argue for a different epistemological viewpoint (empiricism, positivism, etc.), or posit a hard defeater for theism. This late in the debate, it would be bad conduct to introduce new arguments. As such, the ballot should go to Pro by default." As this debate stands, all that I need to do to win the contention is to destroy my opponents case. I am somewhat befuddle by this attempt to derail the debate and to change it's original intent. I did not agree to the debate that my opponent introduced in the third round. I agreed to the debate that my opponent originally posted. As I have destroyed Pros three main arguments, the cosmological, teological and the argument from the historical Jesus, the only viable vote for arguments falls to con. It is frustrating that I have had to waste approximately 3000 characters in reminding my opponent what the premise of this debate is and also frustrating in that I have had to do this throughout the debate. The Cosmological Argument. Again I see no reference to my rebuttal from my opponent. Indeed he states, "I expected Con to attack either the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) or the notion that the necessary fact posited in Step 4 must be a volitional agent. Since he hasn't done so, I think this will suffice for now." I actually I did challenge the latter concept in my round 1 rebuttal. This has not been addressed but simply ignored. My opponent has twice conceded the failure of the cosmological argument and has given me nothing further to refute. Teleological Argument. Here my opponent has presented a complete strawman of my argument, deftly avoiding any attempt to actually address it. My opponent re-presents his argument thusly, "(1) We know that F is true. (2) Theism has much more predictive power with respect to F than naturalism does (ie., F's truth is antecedently many times more probable given theism than it is given naturalism). (3) Theism is more plausible than naturalism (ie., theism is more probable than naturalism independent of all other evidence). (4) Therefore, other evidence held equal, naturalism is very likely false." The problem with this is that point 2 & 3 have no logical or evidential support. My opponent has not demonstrated that theism has 'more predictive power' than naturalism, or that theism is more probable than naturalism. As I have pointed out in the first round, we can not have a probability argument that holds any water when all the pertinent values and variables are utterly unknown. This has never been addressed. The teleological argument is this refuted. Argument from the Historical Jesus The main issue is that my opponent simply attacks the weakest quibbles I have against this argument, such as the non-existence of Jesus or the survival of his crucifixion. I will concede that these are weak arguments, however at no point has my opponent ever made any sort of evidential or logical case that Jesus provides sufficient proof for theism. To explain, my opponent is arguing for theism, and specifically Christian theism and has invoked the historical record of Jesus. For this argument to work he must establish with some plausibility that, a) Jesus was crucified and died for our sins. b) Jesus was the son of God and the result of a virgin birth. c) Jesus came back to life, and appeared to his followers. Assuming Jesus was crucified I would like my opponent to substantiate his case using logic and evidence as to how Jesus died for our sins, what that means and how it can be demonstrated. I would like my opponent to demonstrate that Jesus was the son of God, and that he was the result of a virgin birth. I would like my opponent to establish that Jesus came back to life and appeared to his followers. Though this is recorded in the bible, there appears to be no corroborative evidence to support it. The fact that something is merely written down, does not mean it is fact. My opponent has failed to address numerous counter-arguments, conceding all three of his main arguments as a result. He has constantly quibbled over the terms of the debate, that HE set up, and has failed in many cases to establish even the most basic of evidential or logical proofs to support his case. He has also yet to substantiate several rather ungentlemanly allegations of 'strawmanning'. In short the resolution is negated, and I ask that my opponent leave us with an honest summary or a token resignation to that effect.