Transubstantiation

Con has given a brief statement of his presuppositions. I'll go ahead and do the same.I am a Catholic Christian who believes in Divine inspiration and that one must use both the Bible and the Church to form doctrine. I believe that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man, who came to earth knowing of his purpose to die on the cross, and did so voluntarily. I believe that if one believes this, they will be saved from mortal sin that separates us from God, and be secured salvation in Heaven with God. Apart from belief in Jesus Christ's birth, crucifixion, and resurrection, they may not be saved.Rebuttal of Con's opening statement:1) Philosophical argument of Accidents and Substance.I'll define these two terms, as to not confuse the readers:a) Substance: the element without which the object would not exist which exists independently from its properties.b) Accident: (as used in philosophy) An attribute which may or may not belong to a subject, without affecting its essence. A) Transubstantiation is based upon substance theory.I agree.B) Substance theory undermines epistemological certainty and thus puts the Catholic in a dilemma regarding interpretation.Con fails to mention that substance is not very difficult to determine. I'll give an example:If someone looks out of his window at a ski lodge and state that "Snow is white," he would be attempting to define snow's accidents, that an attribute (color) is present in a substance (snow). However, if he is to walk along a path, and find some yellow snow, he would come to the conclusion that snow is yellow. The substance remains the same, but the accidents have changed. This is simply one example of how substance is separate from accidents. However, we don't see the same scenario in the Bible. In the Bible (as I'd assume Con would stipulate to), the substance of the Bible are truly reflected in the accidents (the words). They are an absolute, certain truth. After all, as Con stated in his rebuttal, Divine inspiration exists as to eliminate this inconsistency between accidents and substance. God essentially intervened to make sure that the words of the Bible (accidents) matched the meaning behind them (substance). For this reason, Catholics can know that what is stated in the Bible matches the substance of them. C) My opponent cannot therefore appeal to verses in the Bible, quotations from the church fathers, ecumenical councils, papal decrees or other ecclesiastical literature which can only be shown via accidents.See above. Although we can only sense the accidents of the Bible, we can know the substance from Divine insperation. D) The only way for my opponent to be able to provide substantial evidence in the debate, is to abandon the Catholic presupposition of substance theory, which would in turn render transubstantiation an invalid doctrine.I won't be overturning substance theory in this debate, and I've shown how I can provide evidence from the Bible without overturning substance theory. E) Catholic doctrine teaches that the accidents remain as bread and wine, yet there is no verse in the gospels that teach that the appearance was different to the substance after the words of consecration."While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many." (Mark 14:22-24)These are Jesus' words in the Gospel, the ones that state that the bread "is my body," and the wine "is my blood." He calls them bread and wine, but then states that their substance is his body and his blood. If this is not enough, in John's Gospel, which you have affirmed to be true, confirms the transubstantiation in 5 different statements:Jn 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."Jn 6:53 "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."Jn 6:54 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life."Jn 6:55 "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink."Jn 6:56 "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."This is all in the Gospel, Con. Jesus seems to make it quite clear when he says that his flesh is "true food" and his blood is "true drink."F) Transubstantiation violates the law of identity. That would be true, if, of course, substance theory is incorrect. However, as I have demonstrated, the accidents of an object do not necessarily reflect its substance. Note, I am not contradicting myself. The accidents and substance of the Bible line up because of Divine inspiration, something that both Con and I stipulate is true in the scriptures.G) The doctrine presupposes the idea that either (a) the accident remaining does not attach itself to the new substance or (b) that it does.I'll choose B. Why? Because we aren't sacrificing Jesus again, we are doing it remembrance of what he has done. Note his words:"This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19b)Not only that, but your logic does not follow. According to the definition of substance, a substance is different from it's properties, thus rendering your argument invalid. II. Transubstantiation cannot be demonstrated to be true scripturally. I'd refer you to my opening statement and this rebuttal, where I give several verses and passages that clearly demonstrate transubstantiation to be true. III. "When my opponent attempts to prepare a rebuttal to my points, it will be by assuming that what is heard matches the substance of my arguments. But how can it be guaranteed that is the case, anymore than bread could be flesh or wine could be blood?" First off, why is this in quotation marks? Did you quote this from someone else? If so, could you credit him/her?Second of all, of course interpretation is necessary when talking in everyday conversation, or on this debate website. Although interpretation isn't always accurate (as no one can read minds), we still use it because it is usually correct when we take the words into context. Here is an example:Suppose I tell someone, "I need some change." In a grocery store, someone would interpret this to mean that I am a few cents short to make my purchase. However, at a political rally, someone would interpret this to mean that I am eager to see social reform. Of course, I could be talking about political change in the grocery store, or money at the political rally, but interpretation is usually right.This shows my BoP. I need not prove beyond any doubt that my interpretation is true, I must simply prove that it is more likely true than not. If I can show that my interpretation is more likely true than not, than it would be illogical to pick Con's interpretation, as it is more likely false. I would like to once again re-iterate my logical syllogism.a) The Bible is true (stipulated by Con).b) The doctrine of transubstantiation is included in the Bible (Argument 1).c) Therefore, the doctrine of transubstantiation is true. If I am able to show that (a) and (b) are more likely true than not, then you must vote Pro.I await Con's response.