Mormonism is Irrational and Flawed

It is practically impossible for my opponent to fulfill his burden at this point. Even if Mormonism is flawed and likely untrue (which is all of Pro's Case), that doesn't mean it is void and completely deprived of reason (as is the definition of irrational). If I can show any reason in the LDS faith, of if Pro drops any of my arguments on it being reasonable, then the resolution is instantly negated.R1. Truth and Faith- Scripture is not based on the lack of evidence. As I said before (and Pro ignored), the Mormon faith encourages people to read its scripture and then ask God if it is true. Such is rational inquiry, and is a legitimate base for evidence. If one asks and they receive a witness (as the BoM guaranteed), then personal spiritual experience is evidence. The LDS faith does not assume that something is true and that one cannot find out about it. James 1:5 states that "if any of the lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him"[1]. If the ability to ask God of certain things were not a part of the Mormon faith, then evidence would not exist and truth wouldn't either.- Faith is the evidence of things unseen because it is the *precursor* to personal revelation, which is evidence. Moroni 10:4 states it very clearly: "and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."[2] The reason faith is so important is because it is the requirement for one to be given personal evidence of what truth is.R2. Nature of God"God cannot be flawless, as proven by such problems as the existence of evil, and the paradox of omnipotence." This is called a Bare Assertion. Pro has not shown how the paradox of omnipotence or existence of evil shows flaws in God's being. I could easily assume that the existence of the universe presumes God, but without making an argument to support such I cannot be taken seriously. This goes for my opponent's assertions: no argument has been made, so no response is needed.R3. Infinite Regression- There are also many within the Mormon faith who reject infinite regression, so to reject it does not mean that Mormonism is deprived of reason or flawed. It just means that one view of certain doctrine is probably unlikely, and that the other view is likely correct.- Saying that God is above logical inquiry doesn't mean that the faith is irrational, just that the deity that is believed in is beyond human comprehension. To apply logic to a transcendent being who created logic and assuming that he is bound by his creation is a flawed assumption.R4. Logical Improbabilities- 1 Nephi 2:6 states that *when* three days had passed, Lehi stopped. The text never says that they even reached the Red Sea, so it is irrational to assume such. Also, Pro says "I believe this can be interpreted to mean that the Red Sea came to pass within three days of travel". This is personal bias, and no rationale for thinking such was provided by Pro, so there is no reason to buy his assertions. I've already shown that the verse indicates the end of three days to be the time when they stopped and camped, not by the time they reached the Red Sea (which they never did go to).- Pro drops 1 Nephi 2:8.- 1 Nephi 1:6 is easy to justify. The existence of God presumes the allowance of miracles, as believed in the Mormon faith. Pro needs to show how such is irrational. Also, scientific laws are based on human perception of how things act 99.9% of the time, and don't necessarily dictate that they must act that way 100% of the time (although they can predict that they will always act as such).R5. DNA EvidencePro dropped all four of my responses to why relying in DNA evidence is not scientifically accurate, and instead states "I trust the results of the scientific inquiry in this case" despite me already showing why not to trust it. Lehi's family is not even Jewish, most of the natives were wiped out due to disease, the natives intermingled a lot, and using the Middle East as a DNA standard is very flawed. Until Pro responds to these, there's no reason to take his assertions at face value. Personal bias seems to be all Pro is relying on.R6. Validity of BoM- Pro dropped my arguments about the BoM writing indicating translation from a Semitic language.- Makie a new argument (such as saying the lack of evidence of animals and minerals is evidence for the BoM's invalidity) is prohibited in the third round and a violation of the round structure, so I am not obligated to respond to it.R7. Civil War ProphecyAn insignificant rebellion in 1832 does not make it "obvious" that a huge war would break out that would come following the entire secession of several states. In fact, "No American statesman in 1832 believed that the doctrines of secession then talked of would result in a great civil war. None of them had the foresight to see that a great rebellion would occur, beginning in South Carolina; that it would terminate in the death and misery of many souls; that the Southern States would be divided against the Northern States"[3][1] https://www.lds.org...[2] https://www.lds.org...[3] http://en.fairmormon.org...