The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is false

Opening RemarksI was under the impression that Pro's first arguments did not include the substance/accident issue because he listed that last instead of first. As such I interpreted it as 2 separate arguments.Additionally, I fully accept that my analogies are imperfect (I clearly stated so in the previous round) because it is impossible to create a perfect analogy for the Eucharist. The shamrock was used to symbolize the Trinity, yet one can show how all sorts of errors with the analogy. However, those who are willing to try to understand the concept the analogy is trying to portray can understand it.RebuttalsPro has ignored my arguments that the nature of the Eucharist is linked to the very nature of God. By Catholic definition God is infinite and omnipresent. Now Pro is trying to argue Jesus, who is the second person of the Trinity, cannot be infinite nor omnipresent. His argument is that God must be finite and singularly located. This is the only illogical argument being presented in this debate.In John 20:19So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” Now did Jesus rearrange the air particles to appear, or did he replace the air particles when he appeared in the room? As the nature of Jesus' glorified body is beyond the confines of the natural sciences, it is unknowable in nature. As I previously stated in the previous round Pro has to show that the Catholic concept of God is wrong, which he never attempted.Perhaps another analogy would add further clarity. Plato's allegory of the cave states that we are like people in a cave seeing the shadows of real objects on the wall. Assume we see the shadow of a piece of bread on the wall. If we replaced the bread with a person, but the shadow still looked like bread, we would still perceive that the object is bread, but it is really a person. If that same person were projected many times on the walls from a variety of light sources you would have what looks like multiple pieces of bread, yet is it all just one person. Once again this is an imperfect analogy, but I believe that the readers of this will understand the analogy being made.1. Rearrangement of PartsI have shown that the Catholic teaching is that God is infinite. If Christ is God, as Catholics claim, then his glorified body is infinite in nature as well. Thus God is able to continue to give his body to us endlessly if only we desire to receive it from him.2. Replacement of PartsCon's Primary argument both for this and the rearrangement of parts argument is that it breaks the Law of Identity. The basic definition of this is that "each thing is the same with itself and different from another”: “A is A and not ~A” [1] - eg. A chair is a chair and not a table.However, this does not apply to the Christian God. The concept of the Trinity violates this law. God is 3 distinct persons in one Godhead. This is why the Trinity is referred to as a mystery. It is ultimately beyond our understanding because our understanding is limited to the concepts of the physical world in which we live. Likewise the Church refers to the Eucharist as a mystery: 1402 In an ancient prayer the Church acclaims the mystery of the Eucharist [2] Pro argues that if Jesus had a cube, and he wanted you to have a cube as well, and it appeared simultaneously in your hand, it could not be the same cube. Without doing some mumbo-jumbo space-time quantum physics improbability drive argument, this is true.Why? Because the nature of the cube is to be a cube within the 4 dimensional time-space continuum. However, the nature of God is to be omnipresent. Thus, if the nature of God is to be omnipresent, then his ability to be truly present in every Eucharist is in accordance with his nature and does not violate logic.3. Conservation of MassPro attempts to dodge the issue with the feeding of 5000. Just how does God violate the laws of logic by feeding 5000 with a few fish and loaves of bread and ending up with more fish and more bread? Ultimately it is not a violation of laws. God choosing to introduce something else into nature does not violate nature any more than you adding a piece to your Lego set violates the Lego construction you previously made. I believe that the previous arguments have already refuted this argument. Infinite and omnipresent nature of God, etc...4. PropertiesAs shown in my modified Allegory of the Cave analogy, Con is basing his argument of the physical realities of the Eucharist. I showed that from the teachings of the Catholic Church that it agrees that there is no discernible physical alteration to the bread and wine. And this is why I claimed that this is a series of straw man arguments.What we are dealing with is a true spiritual reality. This is why I used an analogy of a person who dies, but his body is still being kept in operation by machinery. The human spirit has left the body. It is no longer a united body and spirit, it is just a body. Its substance has changed, though its appearances has not.I have already admitted that my analogies are not perfect, but they describe the concepts that I am trying to impart and I believe the readers can understand the point being made.ConclusionAs I noted in the previous round, and have reinforced in this round, the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is deeply tied to the Catholic concept of God. I believe that I have shown that the two are consistent and intricately linked and logically consistent. Thus it is clear that the only way to disprove the Eucharist is to disprove the Catholic concept of God. This is a task that Pro failed to even attempt in whole or in part.I wish to thank philochristos for an entertaining debate and also everyone who took the time to read this debate through.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...