Catholic Christianity's beliefs are false

1) While tangible, physical evidence is obviously something we can't find in this instance owing to the historical time period in which the claim was made, there are other pieces of evidence that would seem to make the virgin birth at least a plausible event. First, the opposition form conservative religionists at the time suggests that any doctrine could be called into question. However, there's no record of the virgin birth aspect of Christianity ever being debated/denied by skeptics of Christianity. Moreover, the seemingly unbridgeable gap as far as evidence of miracles isn't as large as one would think, taking the existence of God as a preliminary belief. See my point (7) for evidence of this point. If I can show that God probably exists, what would appear insurmountable (the existence of miracles) becomes at once plausible.2) Pro is here arguing that multiple explanations proves that what is being defended must necessarily be wrong. But let's look at where this reasoning gets us. Evolution must be false as well given that the contents of the view have changed over the years, from Darwinism to the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinism)[1]. Pro's standard is clearly a fallacious one.3) Pro is mistaken in thinking that every single proof of every single religion is exactly the same. Consider though that there are unique proofs offered for Catholic Christianity. Pro is again strawmanning.4) The burden is on Pro to prove that my source isn't credible if he takes issue with it. Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be any reason a priori to ascribe skepticism towards his account since Tacitus wasn't even a Christian and thus doesn't appear to have had any dubious motives in his account of Jesus.5) I'm not a literalist. I'm not even Catholic, I'm just defending Catholicism here for fun. Furthermore, my rebuttal doesn't even imply literalism. It is merely against the practice (by some Chrisitians) of arbitrarily picking and choosing which stories they think are allegorical and which are literal. 6) Pro didn't actually provide an argument here so I don't see much to actually refute.7) Bleh, I suppose I'll go for the old modal cosmological argument. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.[2] 8) Pro is mistaken on the meaning of my rebuttal. I wasn't saying allegories in the Bible clearly exist. I'm saying that it's extremely hard to verify that *anything* is allegorical without direct authorial confirmation. However, even without direct authorial confirmation we can still say that some things are probably allegorical as opposed to literal. And again, just showing that some Christian's methodology is off is insufficient as an attempt to disprove the actual ideas they hold. See genetic fallacy[3].9) Pro concedes this point.10) See full refutation of this argument in point (2).11) Again, this commit the genetic fallacy[2]. Pro is attacking the origin of Catholic ideas, not the content of the ideas themselves.===Sources===[1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... Sec. 3.1)[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...