Catholic Christianity's beliefs are false

1) While it can't be denied that being born of a virgin is prima facie implausible, that doesn't make it impossible or an absurd notion. Obviously if we're just speaking of virgins naturally popping out babies, that would be absurd. However, this is a misrepresentation of Catholicism and hence moot. Catholicism posits divine intervention, a miracle, as the explanation for a virgin birth. One can certainly disbelieve in God, but it's not apparent why Pro thinks the idea is itself prima facie "unrealistic".2) This strawmans possible Catholic defense. In Pro's own example of the problem of evil, this isn't the only response. There's also the free will defense, the epistemic limitations defense[1], the moral argument[2], etc. Some Catholics may present unconvincing defenses of Catholic faith. That doesn't necessitate that Catholic faith is itself false.3) I'll ask Pro for elaboration on this point before I attempt to refute it.4) It's likely that Jesus did in fact exist. Far from only being mentioned in the New Testament, the life and actions of Jesus were cataloged by various writers of the time. For example, Tacitus, in his historical work Annals, mentions Christ (spelled Christus) and alludes to him being put to death by the Roman government."But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."[3]5) This isn't an argument I intent to forward in this debate, nor is it a necessary component of Catholicism. All Pro is describing is the faults of a certain approach to Christian apologetics, an approach that is hardly universal.6) This is an unsupported claim by Pro. Why doesn't anyone deserve to go to Hell?7) Conjecture by Pro. Just saying there's no evidence doesn't make it true. Claims require argument and Pro hasn't provided one.8) You can't prove anything is allegorical. That doesn't mean allegories don't clearly exist. Furthermore the flawed interpretation of Biblical tales by early Christians doesn't prove anything other than that humans are fallible. 9) I have no intention of providing any sort of negative argument for Catholicism. Therefore this point is irrelevant to this debate.10) There are various defenses of the existence of what we deem "evil". One theory draws on our own epistemic limitations. We don't know why everything is the way it is. That doesn't mean though that there isn't a good explanation. Another explanation draws on the incoherent presuppositions necessary to even forward the problem of evil. Atheists in forwards to POE presuppose a moral standard of behavior. But where is this moral standard drawn from? The moral argument posits that God is the only explanation for objective morality. That means that any moral criticism of God falls in on itself.===Sources===[1] http://plato.stanford.edu... (Sec. 5.1)[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Sec. 2.6)[3] The Annals, Tacitus. Book 15, Chapter 44. Available online: (http://en.wikisource.org...)