Convince me that the Christian faith is the truth

P1) "All "earth-like" means is that the planet has a habitable temperature range and that it has an atmosphere which protects it from cosmic rays."My opponent has provided no source to prove this claim. I would also like to note that there are many species of bacteria, mostly Archaebacteria, that can survive extreme conditions. Scientists noted that there are certain bacteria that were carried on a Mars rover that could be able to survive the conditions on Mars. It is not known for sure, but these bacteria managed to survive the "cleaning room" before the launch of the space-craft. My source notes that: " Only the hardiest of microbes can survive inside a spacecraft clean room, where the air is stringently filtered, the floors are cleansed with certified cleaning agents, and surfaces are wiped with alcohol and hydrogen peroxide, then heated to temperatures high enough to kill almost any living thing."http://www.scientificamerican.com..."To claim that there was no fine-tuning involved in the development of life on Earth is ludicrous."Once again, out of the trillions upon trillions of planets, it is hard to believe that not one could fall in a hospitable area with a habitable environment/atmosphere. As my sources noted in the previous round, there are many planets that do have conditions that could allow for life."the fact that so many different people have reported instances of direct contact with God, in conjunction with the strong evidence for the universe being fine-tuned for life, makes it highly likely that God is a personal deity who is involved with human affairs, just as Christianity preaches."1. My opponent provides no examples or evidence of "so many different people [having] reported instances of direct contact with God". I would also like to note that often times such experiences are between people (a person reported that he saw a ghost) rather than with God.2. My opponent hasn't managed to prove that the universe is finely-tuned for life. The only real evidence he provides is that the probability of such an event occurring naturally is small, which was refuted by the fact that many scientists have concluded that billions of other planets could be hospitable.3. Christianity may preach this, but so do many other religions. Christianity is not unique in this matter.I will admit that while this is a very interesting point, it does not point to Christianity, but to a God in general.P2) "Jesus did not prevent sins from occurring; rather, his death symbolically represented the *forgiveness* of those sins (past, present, and future)."It may just be my mind-set, but this seems absurd to me. That God would send down his son to die a horrible death to not even help, but simply "symbolize" forgiveness? I also don't see how the death of a Son of God would represent any forgiveness, if anything, it would just show the barbaric nature of human beings because of the way he died.P3) "Pro cites a random blog to show that 'only about 5% of the Roman Empire was Christian', but compare that to my source, which is relatively reputable and cites a number of primary sources throughout it confirming that Christianity was quite widespread. It is clear that my source should be trusted over his source."The author of my source is a professor who received his PhD from Princeton. He is also the recipient of numerous awards and therefore, I believe my source is rather credible.http://www.bartdehrman.com...I would also like to note that my opponent keeps repeating that his source says that "Christianity was widespread". "Widespread" is an opinionated word and cannot be proven. While I have provided numbers, my opponent provides the word "widespread" which could mean anything from "popular in Rome's largest cities" to "popular among small farming communities whose population is very small". Point being, Christianity was not all that popular, even several hundred years after Jesus' death."Pro asks me describe a specific metaphorical interpretation of Genesis, but that is an absurd request which has nothing to do with my argument."My opponent claimed that the Pope declared that the Bible can be interpreted metaphorically. It is logical that I ask my opponent for an example of such an interpretation, which he fails to do.When arguing the credibility of the Gospels, my opponent mentions that "Many Greek and Roman histories were written down decades or even centuries after the events occurred, yet secular historians gladly accept them as being generally accurate. Contradictions between different sources were also common", but provides no sources or evidence from this claim. I would like to stress the fact that at least HALF (2/4) of the Gospel authors were NOT EVEN EYE-WITNESSES. This, along with the numerous mistakes (some quite blaring) that were made, that I mentioned in my argument, allow me to conclude that the Gospels cannot be regarded as quality sources.That is all. Honestly, when my opponent brought up the Gospels, I was quite convinced. But upon looking deeper, I realized that they are pretty "shaky" sources. In conclusion, I don't think that one can use such sources to prove something as big as the ressurection of Jesus.I thank my opponent for the debate, I have been greatly enlightened and now and figured out what I believe.Again, thank you.