Christians know of God's truths, while Jews, and muslims are still in the dark

:D 1. Rebuttals - In Pro's first argument, my opponent makes a variety of claims for which there is no supporting evidence. I will now attempt an analysis of my opponent's argument and explain why it fails to support his or her initial claim: In the beginning of my opponent's first argument, he or she states that Christianity is the only religion to have accepted Jesus as the messiah (Christ). While this could be true, my opponent has provided no scientific, observable, logical, reasonable, or otherwise supportable/falsifiable evidence that Jesus is in fact the messiah, and fails to assert that "Christians know of God's truths" while Jews and Muslims do not. My opponent then goes on to explain the various beliefs of Jews and Muslims regarding their faith in God/Jesus, and provides a series of unsupportable claims surrounding who will supposedly be 'saved'. My opponent continues in his or her argument while providing not a shred of evidence to back her initial statement, trying to explain the alleged falsehoods of Muslims and Jews only through a Biblical and Christian perspective. My opponent fails to provide any logical or supportable evidence that Christianity is more reliable than Judaism/Islam, and refuses to create an explanation that could be seen as even possibly reasonable by those who do not adhere to the exact same interpretation of religion (my opponent's claims could only be seen as valid by other Christians, as they lack universally-supported evidence that could be understood and comprehended by non-Christians). For these reasons, I, respectfully, do not believe that my opponent was able to support his or her initial claim in his or her first round of arguments. 2. Now that I have explained why I believe my opponent has yet to succeed in providing a reasonable argument for his or her contention, I will proceed to provide two evidences against the claim that "Christians know of God's Truth". a. Biblical Contradictions - My opponent, claiming that Christians are fully enlightened regarding the word of God, must be able to show that Christianity can validate the following contradictions found in the Old and New Testaments (all information above was taken from tinyurl. com/ln29oad): - Joseph's father is both Jacob and Heli (MAT 1:16 and LUK 3:23). - The Son (Jesus) is both equal to and lesser than the Father (God) (JOH 10:30 and JOH 14:28). - The righteous both live and perish (PSA 92:12 and ISA 57:1). - Jesus's first sermon was on a mountain and in a plain (MAT 5:1 and LUK 6:17). - Judas died both through self-inflicted hanging and through explosion/bowel-gushing (MAT 27:5 and ACT 1:18). - Michal had both zero and five sons (2SA 6:23 and 2SA 21:8). - Baasha died both in the 26th and 36th years of the reign of Asa (1KI 16:6-8 and 2CH 16:1) - Jesus wore a scarlet robe and a purple robe at his trial (MAT 27:28 and JOH 19:2). - Jesus had three different sets of last words (MAT 27:46,50 and LUK 23:46 and JOH 19:30). - There were three years and seven years of famine (II SAMUEL 24:13 and I CHRONICLES 21:11). b. Contradictions between the Bible and Scientific Evidence - If my opponent's claim were true, Christians would be able to explain how the word of God can validate the following contradictions between the Bible and mainstream scientific evidence: - In Genesis Chapters 1-3, it is explained that God himself created the universe and everything within it - Biblical scholars believe that God supposedly did so around 6,000 years ago. However, scientific evidence strongly refutes the idea that the universe is only 6,000 years old. Mainstream science has collected evidence for the age of the earth using two main methods. The first of which, calculating the age of the oldest known stars, helps to estimate the universe's age using the logical principle that nothing inside the universe is older than the universe itself (therefore, the universe must be at least as old as its oldest contents). To find the age of the universe's oldest contents, scientists have researched globular clusters, or large, dense groups of stars that all formed at around the same time. Scientists have calculated the age of these stars using ample evidence that mass (measured through brightness, orbit size, and distance from Earth) determines a star's life span. Due to this evidence, science has calculated that the age of the oldest stars is between 11 and 18 billion years old - much too long for any reasonable literal interpretation of the Bible to be true. The second method scientists use to measure the universe's age is to calculate the earth's expansion rate and use it to determine when the universe first started expanding. This is done using the Hubble Constant, a measurement that determines the universe's expansion rate. Using the Hubble Constant, science can determine that the universe is between 12 and 14 billion years old - using this method combined with the star aging method, science can safely determine that the age of the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. This age is much to old for any reasonable literal Bible interpretation to be true, and shows that the Bible, as would be expected, is fallacious (tinyurl. com/ko53le). - In Genesis 3:1, a serpent talks to Eve. There is no scientific evidence that serpents can, or ever have, been able to communicate in any form of human language. - In Genesis 5:5, it is reported that Adam lived to 930 years old. There is no scientific evidence that any human can or has ever been able to live to such an age. In the late Neolithic period, when Adam was said to have been born, the average life span was 33.1 years for a male. This makes Adam's reported 930 year life span immensely incredible (tinyurl. com/2u3xhs). - In Genesis Chapters 6-9, it is alleged that a global flood occurred during the lifetime of Noah and his counterparts. Currently, there is absolutely no scientific or logical evidence whatsoever that a global flood possibly could have or did occur in the past 6,000 years. If such a flood did occur, there would be ample scientific evidence showing the effects of such a large and recent flood. Proposing without a shred of evidence that a flood of such size and manner did occur is simply preposterous. - In Leviticus 11:6, a rabbit is said to chew cud. However, all scientific evidence says that a rabbit does not chew cud. 3. As I have refuted the first part of my opponent's contention (Christians know of God's truths) by providing evidence against the validity of Christianity, I will now proceed to provide one short argument for why Judaism is more likely (not less likely) to be true than Christianity. a. Occam's Razor - This principle, widely regarded to be valid by the logistic and scientific communities, is the theory that among competing hypotheses, the one with fewer assumptions is more likely to be true. In the religion of Judaism, the main and only widely-revered sacred text is the Old Testament. However, the religion of Christianity supports the truth of the New Testament in addition to the Old Testament. As both the Old and New Testaments are full of unproven assumptions and contradictions (See Point #2), the principle of Occam's Razor would say that Judaism is more likely to be true than Christianity due to the lower amount of assumptions. Occam's Razor shows that, contrary to my opponent's contention, Judaism has the upper hand over Christianity in knowing 'God's truths' (all information gathered from tinyurl. com/dxmph). 4. Conclusion - I believe that I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments by providing evidence that Christianity is logically and scientifically invalid, as well as evidence that Judaism is more likely to be true than Christianity. Once more, I thank my opponent for creating this challenge, and wish him or her the best of luck in this debate. Thanks!