atheism (pro) vs Christianity (con)

Rebuttal one : analysis of the church fathers Why do I have to depend on someone else to interpret the word of God? If God truly wants to establish a loving relationship with everyone and has revealed his word through the bible, then why is it that I have to go to someone else to interpret what the bible says? I interpret the bible in two ways, either literally or as an allegory. I have demonstrated that if we intrepret the bible literally, it becomes a disaster because of all the immoral acts, contradictions and anti-scientific claims (like flat earth, denial of evolution, young earth). So If the bible is to be interpreted in the literal sense, it would be a false doctrine. However, if the bible was intended as an allegory by its writers, christianity and the bible is no different than other religious metaphors like Norse mythology, Greek Mythology, etc. R2 : Flat Earth " Did the writers of the Bible have access to the technology that we have today? " No, they did not. "Was God trying to communicate to those people in a way that they could understand? " Whatever his intentions were, he made multiple false claims in the bible proving the bible is a false book. "They try to explain their research to lay people who have not done the research that they have did. " I do not understand the relation of this to God saying the world has four corners, Earth has an edge or has ends. R3) Logic "How did they originate? " I stated before that they are necessary uncaused concepts just like other abstract and necessary concepts. asking how did the laws of logic originate is like asking how did the number "7" originate? It did not originate from anywhere. It is an intellectual necessity. How is your worldview better at accounting for the laws of logic? R4) laws of physics "laws of physics exists because the laws of physics exist" Well all of the laws of physics have an explanation. I am obviously not going to go through the explanation for all laws of physics but an example like gravity happens because matter with mass bends the space-time fabric which attracts other matter with mass to this curvature. R5) Reasoning "How do you know these chemical reactions are reliable? " What does this even mean? What do you mean by "reliable"? They serve their function, that is it. R6) morality " then you have no objection to the Biblical verses you mentioned or child marriage or polygamy. " I do because from the western worldview (which I adhere to because it is the most rational stance for me), these things are atrocious and malicious that only the most immoral of creatures would do or encourage. " I will answer these Bible verses in the comments if my opponent wishes. " You should respond to them here, that is what debate rounds are for. R7) abiogenesis " If you want to learn about the fatal flaws of the Miller Urey experiment I recommend Icons of Evolution or In the Beginning by: Dr. Walt Brown. In the article he cited called Truth in Science" My opponent simply refers me to some articles to read. The purpose of a debate is to present the evidence supporting your stance on an issue not to redirect me to one of the millions of scientific papers and books there are. It is only suffice if you present the evidence in those papers or books and then use them as reference. However, just merely sourcing those papers is not enough. "You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present" Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, " it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public. "" quoting scientists alone is not very responsible behavior. This is an argument from authority and not a valid verification of your stance. The fact that this person is not very reputable is a deterimental to your case and does not help it. You should be citing the evidence and proof the author of this paper uses and not just using blanket statements that the author makes. On this basis, I will have to reject your reasoning due to a lack of evidence. In conclusion, My opponent concedes his case for Christianity since he provides no evidence for his stance and does not meet his burden of proof. He concedes his rebuttals on multiple fatal points such as the time trilemma, contradictions in the bible, scientific absurdities in the bible (young earth, no evolution, no big bang) and provides a feeble rebuttal for the flat earth in the bible which frankly, consisted mostly of arguments from authorities (from the church fathers).