Transubstantiation

I will present a closing argument. Unfortunately, there was no format for this debate, so I appoligize if my structure does not match Con's. To be clear, here is the format I used.1) Acceptance2) Opening Statement3) Rebuttal of Con's Opening Statement4) Defense against Con's rebuttal5) Closing Arguments I'll go over the arguments that have persisted through this entire debate, and show how they concusively prove substatiation to be more likely true than not, and therefore, why you must vote Pro.1) Substance TheoryCon has practicaly danced around this topic this entire debate. What I would like the reader to realize, however, is that Con has not denied, nor has he even attempted to disprove, substance theory. You, the voter, may look through all of Con's arguments, and nowhere will you find Con attempting to disprove substance theory. Thus, we may conclude that there is a substance seperate from the accidents of an object, as substance theory was not disproven in this debate.Instead, Con has attempted to show how substance theory can be used against transubstationation, with three different arguments:1) Transubstatiation violates the law of identity (gives example as "unbloody blood").2) Substance theory renders the Bible's interpretation faulty (we can only know accidents).3) Transubstatiation violates substance theory itself (something cannot have no substance or no accidents). My response to these arguments was quite clear.1) This would be true, if substance theory is disproven. However, substance theory is not challenged in this debate, i.e. substance (blood) is seperate from the object's accidents (unbloody). Therefore, there can be something 2) I gave an analogy how substance is not nessesarily reflected in its accidents, showing that transubstatiation is possible. Then, I showed how the Bible can still be accepted as true through the doctrine of Divine Insperation, i.e. the Bible's accidents match its substance because God interviened to make sure the Bible's substance was reflected in its accidents accurately.3) Con attempted to back me into a corner with a dilemma (either the accident is attached to the new substance or it is not). However, I then showed that this dilemma did not prove any of Con's points, instead, it meerly reiterated the definition of the already accepted definition of transubstantiation, i.e. that the bread and the wine's substance is replaced with Jesus' body and blood, yet the accidents remain the same. Con then rebutted.1) Con then changed the question. "I challenge my opponent to explain how blood (substance) can be without blood (substance)." The orginal question was whether or not there can be unbloody (accident) blood (substance), which, as I demonstated before, is possible. He then asks whether or not truthless truth exists.2) Con misused and misinterpreted my analogy. He claimed that my analogy's purpose was to show how I can use my senses to detirmine substance, however, this is entirely false. He then attempted to use this faulty interpretation to prove his contention.that is unbloody (accidents) can still be blood (substance).3) Con dropped this argument.I then responded to Con's new arguments.1) Truth is non-phisical, unlike bread, which is physical. Thus, Con's argument for "truthless truth" is a red herring, as it is non-phisical and thus does not fit under the peramiters of substance or accidents. 2) I cleared up my intention for my analogy, not to show how substance can be detirmined with phyisical senses (as this would be contradictory to the definition itself), but to show how accidents can change, without substance changing. I then reasoned that if accidents can change without substance changing, then one may assert that substance can change without accidents changing, i.e. transubstatiation.3) This argument was dropped by Con.Con then rebutted.1) Con attempted to argue that my "concession" that truthless truth is self-depricating means that unbloody blood is also self-depricating. He then completely ignores my argument upon that truth is non-phisical, while blood is phisical, meaning substance theory can be applied to blood, but not to truth. Therefore, Con has failed to sufficiently rebutt this topic. 2) Con then attempted to "point out contradictions" in my argument. It is thus nessesary I address the 7 he mentions here. Side note, these are the points Con makes, not his quotes.Contradiction 1: Instantanious implies at a point in time.As I have demonstrated, if the transubstatiation were to take place in time, one could slow it down and turn it into a gradual process, which violates transubstatiation. Instead, the switch of substances must take place outside of time. Of course, the switch is made after the words are spoken, but the switch is made outside of time, making it instatanious.Contradiction 2: How do you know the substance hasn't changed when dye is applied to it?Because the substance existed before the accident was applied. The accident (yellowness) existed only after the substance (snow) did. We know this to be true because we know, say, a desk exists before it is painted white. Also, we speak of accidents using substances that reflect the accidents, not the other way around. In order for me to describe whiteness, I must have expericened white things, I must talk about substances with the accident of whiteness.Contradiction 3: A new substance is added: dye. The substance is the dye. The substance is the snow. There cannot be two substances in the same object, this would render the object contradictiory (something cannot be two somethings). Instead, the dye does not cease to exist. Instead, the dye creates a new accident for the snow (yellowness). The dye does not affect the substance of the object it touches. Describing it shows my point: the object is "yellow snow," showing the new accident (yellow) has not affected the substance (snow).Contradiction 4: You claim you don't know what happens to substances, yet claim accidents can change while substances don't.Absolutely. This is no contradiction. See above.Contradiction 5: You claimed that the purpose was (exact quote) "to show it's easy to tell the difference between accidents and substance."Yes. The difference is one I can detirmine using my five senses (accidents), and one that I cannot using my empirical senses (substance). This is the difference between accidents and substance. Where is the contradition, Con?Contradiction 6: Substances cannot have a certain smell or taste, and thus something cannot smell or taste like wine.This statement, "tastes like chicken" is an example of above. This is the interpretation, from a philisophical standpoint. "From my experience with accidents, when I experience this substance's (the other meat) accidents, it tasted like the accidents attached to a substance (chicken) I had eaten before." Substances are nouns, and accidents are adjectives. You can sense adjectives, but not nouns. The only way to describe nouns is with adjectives. In the same way, the only way to describe adjectives is by attaching them to a noun (I know what tall means because I have seen an object that is described as tall).Contradiction 7: You state that the Eucharist cannot be self-inspired, but then state that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, meaning he is present in Christ.Yes. This isn't a contradiction. Christ is the same person as Jesus. This is like saying David is present in Mr. Modrovich. That is because I am David, and I am Mr. Modrovich. Those are just two of my names, two different ways to address me. Con's "contradictions" are meerly mislabeled attempts at disproving my theory, which, I might add, have conclusively failed.I can thus say that transubstation is possible under substance theory.On to the second contention:2) Logical SylogysimFirst Premise: The Bible is true.Con has conceded this premise. "Pro then gave a syllogism, of which I only accept the first premise." (Round 2, Pro)Second Premise: The docrine of Transubstatiation is found in the Bible.I have quoted many verses. I'll list them below, as I am running out of word count.-John 6:51-56Five different ways that Jesus meant for the bread to become his body.-Mark 14:22-24Jesus clearly states that the bread "is his body" and the wine "is his blood."-Matthew 26:26-28Jesus tells us yet again that we are to eat what he calls "my body" and drink what he calls "my blood."-1 Corinthians 11:23-29Paul clearly lays out the doctrine of transubstantiation, and how eating and drinkng "without recongnizing the blood" is commiting a grevious sin.-1 Corinthians 10:16Paul tells us that the blessing of the cup is "communion with the blood of Christ" and the breaking of the bread is "communion with the body of Christ."The only possible meaning of all of these passages is that the bread and wine after the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so. Thus, we can affirm the second premise of the sylogysm.Conclusion: The doctrine of transubstatiation is true.This sylogysm is an AAA-1 sylogysm, one that Con would accept to be valid, I assume. "Thus, the specific syllogisms that share any one of the 256 distinct syllogistic forms must either all be valid or all be invalid, no matter what their content happens to be. Every syllogism of the form AAA-1 is valid (1)."Therefore, seeing that I have proven my contentions beyond a preponderance of the evidence, I urge the voters to choose Pro, as I have proven my case to be more likely true than not. Therefore, it is only logical that you vote Pro.Thanks to Con for a stimulating and exiting debate! I look forward to what else you can acomplish on this site. Perhaps I shall see you again on the forums, or in another debate?And thank you to any voters who take the time read our debate and create an RFD for strangers like us on the Internet!