Jesus Christ is more likely to be an alien than the son of God.

Thanks Pro. I. Preface Forgive my tone in this closing, as Pro's antics have annoyed me, legit or not. In any case I thank Pro for this unusual debate and good luck in voting. II. Son Semantics First Con did not define terms in the first/second/third OR forth round. Second my use of son is very much in line with social and colloquial convention. Third, most Christians don't believe Jesus was a biological son of God, and rather instead a son in spirit, hence Pro's 'intended definition' is prima facie nonsensical even assuming Pro's 'intended' debate of assuming God and Alien's existence (which seems to be a whine rather than an actual argument). And forth, Pro attacks my personal debate history, in which case I am inclined to issue a tu torque and show a debate of Pro's in progress right now where Pro is heavily abusing absurd semantics to win. (http://www.debate.org...) Clearly he has a double standard if he thinks he deserves to win both of these debates. Lastly recall my opening round: "God gave us free will, and consciousness. In doing so he fathered our minds, and indeed every single mind, alien or not." Please imagine what you would be like without consciousness. Imagine how monotonous the world would seem if you were just an unaware machine to move and breed. Yes, God really is our father if he gave us consciousness, as we ARE our consciousness. III. Jesus a Son of God Pro has dropped all my arguments for this. I quoted several bible verses stating explicitly that God is the father of all men. This by itself is enough to win the debate as it doesn't matter what semantics you use, the statement in both the new and old testaments is enough to affirm my case. Remember all of Pro's arguments for Jesus being an Alien PRESUPPOSE the Old and New testament's veracity. As such from a theological perspective this debate is already over, you have have something be both true and false. Pro needed to defend the premise/presupposition "If Jesus isn't messiah THEN he isn't a son of God", and yet he has failed to do so despite my explicit challenge of it. Claims need to actually be substantiated, Pro, you simply cannot just assume them. I quote Hitchen's Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" IV. Aliens I made two claims regarding aliens in this debate: 1. The evidence provided by Pro is junk 2. Many of Pro's claims are falsifiable First let's kill off Pro's first round references which Pro asserts are credible scientific publications. http://www.abduct.com... http://ufodigest.com... http://www.ufoabduction.com... That's it, 3 alien references, and none are scientific, peer reviewed, controlled and the least bit unbiased. Junk science is the name. Now let's deal with the falsifications. "Artifacts simply aren't as important as my opponent has indicated...They wish to conceal their presence, so they do." This is called ad hoc reasoning, Pro. This ignores the stupendous significance that would inevitably occur if any were found, yet have not. Not one. " ..abduction narrative which is experienced by between 2% and 4% of the population." THAT is over 100 million people! 100 million addictions and not one artefact or tangible piece of evidence! Pro hangs himself on the noose by making this massive claim! Perhaps existing in abundance is not an accurate description of Pro's claim. Abundant activity is probably a better descriptor, 100 million is no small feat. "...our vastly inferior technology is so out of date that no picked up communications could occur." This is just false, any radio signals or any e/m wave are very much detectable with any modern technology. V. Conclusion Jesus is not an alien and is more likely to be son of God. Pro's case is both unsound, and just plain false. Vote Con! http://tinyurl.com...