Mormonism is Irrational and Flawed

In this round, I will show the weaknesses in both my opponent's responses to my arguments and his own arguments for the rationality of Mormonism.RebuttalR1: The Conflation of Symbolic and Literal Truth"The issue with Pro's argument is that he is assuming truth cannot be found. As believed in the Mormon faith, truth does exist, and they can be found by searching the scriptures. At the same time, the church encourages an open mind and a rational inquiry. It does not discourage intellectual questioning and reasoning as Pro asserts it does."Here, Con conflates two ideas of truth- one symbolic truth as found in scripture, and a literal truth also achieved through rational inquiry. I argue that literal truth cannot be found in religion, and never will be, as nothing found in religious texts is supported by a shred of evidence. Simply put, it is irrational to look for literal truth in religious text, especially scripture, as very little is historically accurate.Coming from a purely rational, logical perspective, I would argue that truth is factual and based on evidence, otherwise we cannot prove that something is (or was) physically existent. By this definition, there cannot be universal spiritual truth, as spirituality is opinion-based. One is attracted to religion, as one is spiritually satisfied by this sort of faith.Therefore, I find that reading scripture for truth, whether literal (non-existent in religious texts) and symbolic (up to opinion, therefore not universally true) is irrational.Drawn directly from mormon.org: "To have faith is to 'hope for things which are not seen, which are true' (see Book of Mormon, Alma 32:21 and Hebrews 11:1)."We can see a clear conflation again in Mormon text. Mormonism allows for the interpretation of text for literal truth by my definition, however, if the 'things' interpreted for truth 'are not seen', there is either a contradiction, or an encouragement to search for symbolic truth. Symbolic truth cannot be existent by my definition either.R2: On God's 'Flawlessness'Upon inquiry of this belief in God's flawlessness, we can conclude that by this belief, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. On the contrary, God cannot be flawless, as proven by such problems as the existence of evil, and the paradox of omnipotence.Unless God is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc., however, then, he cannot be a perfectly flawless being. I ask my opponent to make this distinction. R3: Arguing Against Infinite Regression Is ValidIt is a cop-out reject the premise of infinite regression because there are some within the Mormon faith that reject it. I have brought up this argument specifically because the belief of infinite regression is both logically implausible and supported within the LDS community. "Those who attack the Saints on these grounds often make the mistake of confusing various ideas about infinity. They may take principles that apply to finite things, and improperly extrapolate them to infinite things."I am not extrapolating any theories of finite things, I am claiming that an infinite regression is impossible because of the idea of transversing an infinity. Also, by countering a logical implausibility within the Mormon religion by claiming that God is above logical inquiry is a cop-out and shows the irrationality of Mormon belief. This denial of logic shows that this type of faith is irrational.R4: The Texts Do Contain Implausibilities, Contrary To My Opponent's ArgumentsMy opponent claims that "[1 Nephi 2:6] implies that Lehi stopped when the three days were up, not when he got to the Red Sea." On the other hand, I believe this can be interpreted to mean that the Red Sea came to pass within three days of travel, which by my previous arguments, is a highly implausible belief to hold. Also, my opponent responds to my refutation of 1 Nephi 1:6 with: "The existence of God is a tenet in the Mormon faith, and members believe miracles such as these to be a result of communication with God." However, we already know that miracles are logically and rationally implausible. Let me cite Voltaire: "A miracle is the violation of mathematical, divine, immutable, eternal laws. By the very exposition itself, a miracle is a contradiction in terms: a law cannot at the same time be immutable and violated."R5: On Denial of DNA Evidence"you'll definitely find that genes are hard to pin down...It is not a scientifically sound approach to base DNA findings off the Middle East when it has always been the crossroad of three continents."I doubt, with the numerous advances made in the genomic field, that mapping the genome and tracing the Lamanites to their origins would be impossible, as my opponent infers. I trust the results of the scientific inquiry in this case. Using advanced genomic technology, it is quite simple to map the genome. We can trace the Native American tribes back to their roots by comparing genes to indigenous tribes in various regions of the world.My opponent finds this sort of technological capability far-fetched, when it is clearly not.R6: On the Claim to Rationality for the BoM"The evidence provided shows that it is rational to believe in the BoM, thus Mormonism as well. How could a boy with only three years of education[10] come up with 531 pages of claimed scripture know so much about the Middle East, especially the Arabian Peninsula in which Lehi traveled? Coming up with many Semitic names (Amleki, Giddianhi, Mariontum, etc.) is also a pretty interesting feat."I think my opponent assumes in this argument that if Joseph faked the originality of the Book of Mormon, it would be blatantly obvious.My opponent proposes hypothetical statements as grounds to claim the Book of Mormon's credibility, however, there is evidence (yes, evidence) to suggest that the Book of Mormon is not so. For example, the animals mentioned in Nephite records (including cattle, horses and sheep) do not have any archaeological support for their existence during the time period when the Book of Mormon was written. It is the same for metals and minerals mentioned in the text; there is no archaeological evidence to support the mining or usage of these materials. R7: On The Prophecy of Civil War"For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States..."[11] This is direct evidence of prophecy."This is NOT prophecy. In 1832, when my opponent claims the Civil War was 'predicted of', there was tension between the North and the South, and it was not hard to think of the possibility of civil war. These tensions had been built up slowly over time, and came to a peak in this exact year, 1832, with the Nullification Crisis.---------------------I await my opponent's response.Additional Sources(1) http://www.exmormon.org...(2) http://www.mormon.org...(3) http://study.com...;