Judaism Is More Likely to be True Than False

My Pluralistic Hypothesis maintains that the major religions of the world represent responses to actual encounters with the Real. The religious experiences these religions are founded on are a result of the human mind trying to comprehend and express contact with an incomprehensible divine reality. The major religions all offer equally legitimate ways of understanding and relating to the Real.Pro notes that I did not attack his opening arguments. This is because my positions is that his opening arguments constitute a small portion of the evidence that must be considered in developing a theory of the divine. I allow that the evidence Pro presents in R2 is compelling, but I also hold that such evidence is not exclusive to Judaism, but is found across religions. As such, a theory of the divine must account not only for the evidence in favor of Judaism presented in R2, but also for evidence in favor of all other religions. Judaism is then not the best way to account for the evidence Pro points to in R2, but instead we should look to pluralism.A. ObservationsI have ben saying all debate that there are no distinguishing characteristics between miracles and Pro's only response is that these other miracles are caused by false prophets and that there is "a test" to determine false prophets. At no point during the debate did he elaborate what this test was (and so I am not able to critique it), Pro also drops my argument in the previous round showing that the "false prophet" explanation is symmetric and that it is not supported by the transformative property of religions.My opponent concedes there are true prophecies in other religions.He makes no effort to account for this from an Exclusivist perspective, further demonstrating the superior explanatory weakness of Exclusivism.B. Contentions:i) I am dropping the salvation argument- it offers my opponent no offense and it is not central to my case so I can kick it without penalty.ii) My opponent offers no rebuttal to my point that Exclusivism would suggest that a single religion be strongly supported by modern empirical evidence but that this is not the case. This is a dropped argument.iii) Again, Pro has largely conceded all my examples of miracles an prophecy from other religions without providing an explanation for why the evidence in Judaism's favor is unique. Note especially my example of Aztec migration in R3 that shares the same characteristics as the Mt. Sinai story- this point was either dropped or conceded.D. Case against pluralismAgain Pro fails to put forward any sort of offensive argument, instead just misinterpreting the pluralistic hypothesis. The hypothesis does not say that all religions are true. It is immediately obvious that this is not the case if you jus tlook back to my original definition at the top of my opening argument. Pluralism maintains that the experiences and stories of each religion are "true" in that they describe real human interaction with the divine as perceived by humans but are not accurate in describing the nature of divine reality (just as each of the kaleidoscope viewers accounts of the image were "true" but not accurate). C. Pluralism is more likelyThe lack of offense by my opponent makes the judge's decision easy. You simply cannot win a debate without offense. I have provided a thourough argument demonstrating that Judaism fails to account for a massive body of evidence, evidence that my opponent concedes is real, and also that this evidence contradicts the claims of Judaism. I have then shown that Judaism faces substantial challenges in establishing its truth. On the other hand, I have defended a position which accounts for all of my opponents arguments as well as the contradictory evidence of varying religions. At the same time my opponent has not provided a single challenge to the viability of pluralism.I have generated a large amount of doubt toward the truth of Jewish eclusivism, while my opponent has generated no doubt at all toward pluralism. This makes deciding which positions is more likely very easy- pluralism is more likely.