The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is false

Unforunately, we're having some misunderstandings.What is transubstantiation?Con accuses me of making a strawman argument by misrepresenting the doctrine of Transubstantiation. However, his definition is exactly the same as mine. We both agree that transubstantiation entails the substance of bread and wine changing into the substance of Jesus' body and blood with only the appearance of bread and wine remaining. I cited the Catholic Catechism in the first round to this effect, and the definition I gave there is exactly the same as the definition given by Con's citation of the Baltimore Catechism.Con's flag analogy does not fit transubstantiation at all because even when the silk threads are part of the flag, they remain silk threads. There is no change in substance. Silk threads are the parts that make up the flag. It is not the Catholic position that bread is a part that makes up the body of Christ. So if anything, Con is misrepresenting the Catholic position with his analogy.Con's attempted rebuttalsIn the previous round, I gave two ways transubstantiation could happen and showed that both were problematic.1. Rearrangement of partsCon accuses me of strawman here, but didn't show it. He states that although the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus, they maintain the appearance of bread and wine, which is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that if you rearrange the parts to turn bread into wine, even if you arrive at human flesh, it cannot be Jesus' flesh. There is a problem of identity. I gave a thought experiment to demonstrate this fact, which Con ignored.I'll use another one. Suppose instead of saying, "This is my body," Jesus had said, "This is John's body." And suppose the exact same thing happened--the bread turned into human flesh. What makes it John's body rather than Jesus' body? All Jesus can do is turn the bread to flesh. But there is nothing he could do in addition to that to cause it to be one person's body rather than another's.2. Replacement of partsCon reveals in his response that he has completely misunderstood my argument. I am not claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that transubstantiation only results in creating a replica of Jesus. As I have said, they teach that the bread actually becomes Jesus body itself. My argument is that given how transubstantiation must occur, it is impossible it could be Jesus' body itself. If you replace all the parts of bread with flesh, the best you could get is a replica, not Jesus' actual body. That's why the Catholic doctrine is impossible.I used a thought experiment that Con ignored. I'll use another one. Imagine Jesus has a cube in his hand, and he wants that cube to be in your hand, too. *POOF* A cube appears in your hand just like the one in Jesus' hand, yet it never left his hand. Is it even possible that these two cubes could be the same cube? Of course not! That is logically impossible since they are located in two different places.In the same way, when Jesus said, "This is my body," it is impossible that the bread he was handing out was the same body as the body that was reclining at the table that Jesus was animating.So transubstantation by replacement of parts would be a violation of the law of identity. That's why I say the Catholic doctrine is impossible rather than merely unlikely. God himself cannot violate the laws of logic.Conservation of massCon attempts to make a parallel between Jesus multiplying fish when feeding the 5000 to the priest multiplying Jesus' flesh during Mass. If Jesus started with 2 fish and created 4998 more, it is not possible for them to all be the same fish. It's possible they're all perfect replicas of the original 2 fish, but it is not the Catholic position that the Eucharist is a replica of Jesus' flesh. To make this parallel work, Con would have to argue that 5000 fish were actually the same 2 fish, which is a contradiction.Perhaps Con thinks there remained only two fish, but they got bigger. But that is clearly not analogous to what happened at the last supper. Jesus didn't grow fatter, then cut off parts of his body. He remained in tact, and more flesh came into existence that was not connected to Jesus' body. Since Jesus didn't lose any parts, it's not possible the bread could be his body. And since Jesus has a physical human body, even in his resurrection body, it's not possible that all those wafers on Sunday morning could all be Jesus' body.PropertiesCon claims he already responded to this argument, but he hasn't. I argued that it is impossible for an object to have all the properties of one thing, and none of the properties of another thing, and yet be that other thing. Con only claimed that his church teaches the body and blood keep the properties of bread and wine. But that's the very teaching I object to, so pointing out that it's what his church teaches doesn't amount to a rebuttal. Con needs to answer my argument. Is it possible for a computer to have all the properties of a Christmas tree and none of the properties of a computer, and still be a computer?His analogies are woefully inadequate. A human body remains a human body even right after death. But then it ceases to have any of the properties of personhood, so it's not a person.If it were possible to upload your consciousness in a computer, then download it to multiple computers, that wouldn't result in you being in multiple places at once. That would result in copies of you being in multiple places at once. God could easily create another copy of you and plant all of your mental states in it, but it would still just be a copy of you, and not you yourself. By the indiscernibility of identicals, if anything is true of person A that is not true of person B, then they cannot be the same person. So a simultaneous multiply located person is impossible.ConclusionTransubstantiation is impossible because it violates the fundamental laws of logic. It isn't merely unlikely; it is logically impossible.