Christian belief in eternal torment is indefensible.

Well, that sure was a fast reply! Too fast. That was disappointing. Round 1 was just introduction, so that didn't count. At the beginning of Round 2, I clearly explained the guidelines of this debate: "This is not about whether the Christian Bible supports eternal torment. Quoting the Bible will not prove your position, except to those who already agree with you. There is no point in having a debate if you simply say God is correct no matter what God does." The rules, which you implicitly agreed to by continuing the debate, were straightforward. Since you weren't following these rules, I reminded you again in Round 3: "So far, you have done nothing but preach to the choir. Christians who already agree with you, and don't want to question their beliefs, will continue to agree with you. But non Christians, as well as Christians who have been wondering about these issues already, could not possibly be swayed by your presupposition that God must be right and we cannot question God." You can believe your interpretation of the Bible is absolute truth, but by continuing the debate after I clearly stated the rules, you agreed that these tenets of your belief could not be used as evidence: 1. Christian Bible is the inspired Word of God and says hell is eternal torment. 2. We cannot question God because God is perfect. 3. We cannot question God's plan because it is perfect. 4. If we think we see a problem, we are mistaken because God cannot be wrong. Obviously, if the above presuppositions are correct, then I am wrong and there is no point in debating. But your responses throughout the debate include these assumptions as "proof." Now I would like to ask you, and the readers, to review Rounds 1-4 and ignore any of your points that use these presuppositions. Not much left, is there? Why did you agree to this debate then refuse to follow the rules? We are now in the final round and we have scarcely had any legitimate debate! This is my last reply, and I have very little to respond to, other than your long tirades where you repeatedly violated the rules. To briefly summarize, my case focused on two main points: 1. God's plan was faulty. You went on and on about how humans are at fault, even though I agreed that humans bear some responsibility. You also repeatedly said that we should blame parents, even though parents are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. These are both ways to avoid any discussion about God's role in this. But your main response was repeatedly saying that God makes all the decisions and we cannot set expectations on God or give God responsibility, violating the rules of the debate. 2. Eternal Torment is excessive and does not fit the crime. You tried to compare our judicial system and parents disciplining children to eternal torment, and I pointed out the absurdity of it by saying you were "comparing apples and oranges." Then I was more explicit and said, "Don't compare a grain of sand to the universe." Granted, we can use examples in our judicial system about determining guilt or innocence and the penalty for a crime. However, comparing eternal torment to any punishment in our judicial system - including the death penalty - is beyond absurd. Surely you understand that! But again, your main focus violated the rules of the debate (God can do whatever God wants, God's plan was for everyone to live eternally, only God can determine what is just, etc.) By the way, you did make a couple points in Round 4 that I need to respond to: "On the other hand, a murder can take place in the blink of an eye and the resulting punishment will be life in prison (or perhaps the death penalty). The duration of the crime clearly has little or nothing to do with the duration of the penalty." Yes, it is the consequence that counts, rather than the duration of the crime. And murderers should get the death penalty. But this does not justify eternal torment. Also, in previous rounds you made the point that a sin against an eternal being has eternal consequences. While I wasn't impressed with this line of reasoning, you elaborated more in the last round: "If your sister catches you lying about your income last year, you might lose her respect. If the IRS catches you lying about your income last year, the resulting punishment will be far more painful. What's the difference here? It certainly isn't the crime. Instead, we recognize that the greater the source of the code, rule or law, the greater the punishment for those who violate the code, rule or law. If God is the Highest Authority, we should expect that violations of His "laws" would result in significant punishment(s)." First of all, the penalty would be the same if the IRS catches you or your sister turns you in. If your sister doesn't report you, then you don't pay the penalty. And if you commit a crime in front of a police officer, the penalty isn't any worse than if a civilian reports you to the police. And as far as the penalty for a crime, the CONSEQUENCE of the crime should determine the punishment. The example you used above was that a murder can take place in the blink of an eye and still be devastating. Agreed. And the consequence of a crime is determined by the VULNERABILITY of the victim. Even though stealing $100 from a homeless person and stealing $100 from a millionaire would result in the same penalty, it is obvious that the homeless person would suffer more from this crime than the millionaire. A better example, recognized by our court system, is child abuse. While it is bad to hit an adult, it is worse to hit a child! And while it is terrible to rape a woman, isn't it even worse to rape a young girl? Crimes against children are worse because children are more vulnerable. The seriousness of a crime depends on the consequence to the victim. We can hurt any human if we have the right weapon. But can we really hurt God? God could be sad that some reject, but billions of others accept God's plan, so God will be okay. Eternal torment for a crime against an invincible God, that cannot be harmed, does not make sense. A true test of character is how we treat the vulnerable. Treating a defenseless child kindly is good moral character, while treating a well conditioned marshal arts expert kindly could be nothing more than self preservation. And following Biblical laws for no other reason than to receive eternal life in paradise and/or avoid eternal torment hell is morally bankrupt, yet many have this self centered attitude. Throughout this debate, you have insisted that God is not responsible to do anything. You ask why God should stop suffering, or intervene. You repeatedly say that God is not obligated to help in any way. You do not consider a plan, where the majority of people - countless billions - suffer eternal torment, a failure. My reasoning was based on the premise that God DOES exist and IS loving and merciful. You have not demonstrated this nor have you demonstrated that eternal torment is just. Your ONLY response is, "God can do whatever God wants." You can believe that, but in a debate where you are defending the actions of God, that is NOT good enough! It is nothing more than the common mantra: God said it. I believe it. That settles it! Again I ask: why did you agree to this debate if you were not going to follow the rules? Regarding my two main contentions (1 God's plan was faulty, and 2 Eternal torment is excessive), do you believe that you refuted either of them, WITHOUT using invalid presuppositions? I hope you realize that you have done no such thing!