Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then the Abrahamic Relgions

I shall now address my opponent's points, and conclude this debate. 1. PlausibilityMy opponent's counterargument is simply false, as Bobby Henderson, creator of Pastafarianism, states that The Flying Spaghetti Monster was a monster which was constructed of pasta and had the ability of flight before the creation of The Universe. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. -Bobby HendersonIf this Flying Spaghetti Monster did in fact create all material, then it could not have had the ability to fly (due to no spatial dimensions in existence to achieve lift) and could not have been composed of Spaghetti (since apparently it created Spaghetti, since we can see and feel Spaghetti). As my opponent's claim contradicts The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (and thus, by Pro's definition, Pastafarianism), this is not a good argument to show that Pastafarianism is better than the Abrahamic religions' concept of God on the issue of plausibility. Also, my opponent makes a fatal error in scientific understanding. Pro claims that God violated the law of conversation of mass. This is simply false, as this law relies on the given quantity of mass at a certain point in time. God. however, created time. .. and therefore the creation of matter without previous material existence is allowed under this physical law. 2. Morality Pro claims that these acts are immoral, but his only arguments as to why these acts are immoral are as follows: A. People do not deserve to be brutally executed for simple acts. B. The majority of people disagree with the punishments for these acts. For argument A, my opponent does not justify why these acts are simple. He does not show us that such things as false worship of another god is truly undeserving of the punishments given. As such, it is an unfounded argument, and therefore is not a good reason to accept Pro's conclusion. For argument B, my opponent raises the moral system of democratic relativism. However, the implications of such a moral system seemingly contradict my opponent's conclusion, as if the majority of people supported the acts which he deems immoral, then these acts would actually be moral. Pro's second argument defeats itself, and therefore is not a good reason to accept Pro's conclusion. Also, I would like to address The Flying Spaghetti Monster as a just deity. If the punishment for the exceedingly wicked is the absence of finer alcohol, then I wager that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is in fact an unjust being, a wicked being, for not giving fair justice to those who deserve it. Using my opponent's stance on morality, he indirectly submits to the position that the concept of one deserving of punishment does in fact exist, since he claims that people do not deserve to be killed on the basis of a choiceSo, with my opponent's morality, it would make The Flying Spaghetti Monster a being that which is unjust, as to not properly punish those who do extreme evils. Pro then goes on to say that, even if I show that Christianity is moral, that I have not fulfilled my burden of proof. However, since the God of Abraham applies to all three religions, I have already shown how these religions are better than Pastafarianism because of the fact that they are more plausible than Pastafarianism. Concerning the rebuttals about the bible verses: 2 Timothy 2:16First off, the verse is 3:16, not 2:16. 2 Timothy 2:16 talks about godless chatter. However, I did not show a contradiction in the verse, rather that the verse given qualifies "all Scripture". Unless my opponent argued that the verse in Romans is in fact not scripture, then he has not given us any good reasons to think that these verses are contradictory. Matthew 5:17My opponent abandons his actual evidence and instead deals with Matthew 5:18. The usage here is figurative, which is why Luke recounts the words as follows: It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. John 7:19Because the Pharisees, who were challenging Him, did. Exposing this exposes their own hypocrisy. 3. Violence. My opponent gives no reasons to think that this violence was unjustified, but as I already addressed this on the topic of morality, I shall focus on a key fault which my opponent has made. Pro says that science tells us that sexuality is something which we are born with, but there is no current consensus on the issue of sexuality and birth -. http://en.wikipedia.org... The rest of my opponent's presentation is simply stating that these acts are unjustified and not good. Just as with the issue of morals, my opponent has not given any good reasons for us to think that this is true. The rest of Pro's argument fails because, once again, Pro fails to provide sufficient reasoning towards his own claims. ConclusionConcluding this debate, I have successfully refuted all of my opponent's claims on the issue of The Flying Spaghetti Monster being plausible. Therefore, Pastafarianism is not equal nor better than the Abrahamic religions in terms of plausibility. I have also shown my opponent's views on morality to be unfounded, and thus not sufficient for us to conclude that the Abrahamic religions are evil. Furthermore, I also showed that under my opponent's view of morality, Pastafarianism is in fact unjust. Therefore, Pastafarianism is not equal nor better than the Abrahamic religions in terms of morality. I have also shown my opponent to be just as unfounded on the issue of violence. Therefore, Pastafarianism is not equal nor better than the Abrahamic religions in terms of violence. My opponent has not given any good reasons why we should think that Pastafarianism is better or equal to Abrahamic religions. I have also shown that Pastafarianism is implausible, thus rendering the Abrahamic religions better than Pastafarianism in terms of plausibility, thus rendering my opponent's case false.