It is unreasonable to not believe in God.

Thanks Pro.Scepticism is RationalPro strawmans my position by attacking a notion of scepticism I did not put forth. I was very explicit with my definition and take on a position of scepticism, which is to reject all positive claims a priori fro they are more likely false than true. So while Pro is welcome to attack RationalWiki’s definition, he would be doing do in a manner which does not address the position and arguments I explicitly put forth. Thus, a strawman, a misrepresentation.I never made the claim that "all claims are more likely false than true", instead what I deduced was that “not all positive claims are more likely true than false”, and I defined positive claims as positive existential claims (which is how it’s relevant to this debate). Of course, the deduction that “not all positive claims are more likely true than false” is an epistemological one, rather than a metaphysical one, and hence it is not making a claim about the way reality is, but about the most rational way to believe.It is clear that Pro concedes my deduction “not all positive claims are more likely true than false”, since he never contested any of the premises of the argument, or the logical progression. He only argues about the application of this to the claim that ‘God exists’.Con's assumption that, is false. The absurdity of the assumption becomes evident when you make contradictory claims. Let's consider the claims, "God exists" and "God does not exist". Either God exists or he doesn't. Both claims cannot be true. If it is more likely that God exists, it is less likely that he doesn't exist. But, if it is more likely that God does not exist, it is less likely that he does exist. According to Con's assumption, it is more likely false that God exists and, at the same time, it is more likely false that he doesn't exist.Application of Scepticism to GodFirst we need to understand exactly why positive existential claims are very different to negative existential claims. I tried to explain this in the previous round but Pro ignored it.In the previous round I argued that assuming that God is more likely to exist than not *necessarily entails* that *every other claim* to some entity that possesses omnipotence, or omniscience, or creator or cause to the universe is false. Be it an intelligent entity (such as another pseudo-deity), or a non-intelligent entity (such as some natural cause for the universe). Assuming the one positive claim that God exists is likely in turn assumes each and every one of these contradictory positive claims to be false.Therefore, IF we have no more reason to believe that the God claim to be true than we have to believe any of the *each and every one of the contradictory claims* to be true, then assuming God to be more likely is unsound and a case of special pleading. We have no more reason to believe a teapot in a specific location near Mars than we do a teacup, a bowling ball, etc. although they are mutually exclusive claims.The key difference with the epistemological claim that “God is more likely to *not* exist than to exist” is that this latter claim doesn’t entail anything. There is one and only one claim which it can possible contradict, and that is the claim that “God is more likely to exist than not”. God not existing doesn’t physically constrain anything else from occurring, and hence it cannot possible contradict anything else. Nothing contradicts nothing.As such, without positive reasons to accept God’s existance to be more likely, then our stance should be one of both scepticism, but also the stronger claim that that “God is more likely to not exist than to exist”.CognitivismPro attempts to circumvent this later by arguing that God is not omnipotence, or omniscient, or the creator. Instead that God is just ‘absolute perfection’.However, in doing so he makes the entire concept of God meaningless, since ‘absolute perfection’ is necessarily a subjective statement, since ‘absolute perfection’ needs a standard by which it is to be perfect. A perfect square for example, has a well-defined definition of having four equal perpendicular sides, and the closer something is to that definition, the more perfect a square it is.For God though, ‘absolute perfection’ lacks such a definition, and hence is necessarily meaningless. God is about as meaningful as Fod. Quite clearly, it is irrational to believe in Fod, since it’s meaningless, by the same measure it is irrational to believe in God (as Pro defined it last round), since the term is meaningless.Pro presents 4 logical arguments for God last round, consequently ignoring all my rebuttals in the previous round.First ArgumentPro ignores all my previous rebuttals to this. Hence I extend my arguments here.Second ArgumentI only intend to challenge the assumption:“If the universe follows laws it has a law giver”While the euphemism is nice, but why should this be the case. Pro necessarily assumes that natural laws are prescriptive, but in science the natural laws are simply descriptive of generalised behaviour (since science is an inductive exercise.An excellent example of laws arising without prescription is indeed the second law of thermodynamics, which is an entirely statistical phenomenoa. There are just ‘more ways it could be messy than tidy’, which is essentially the entire ‘driving force’ of the second law.[1]No overarching law-giver is required here, as it’s simply an emergent statistical phenomenoa. Given that this law is one of the biggest drivers of events that occur within the universe, it follows that demonstrating this very fundamental law of physics requires no law-giver is a huge hole in Pro’s hypothesis.Third argumentI already addressed this argument in detail in the previous round. Pro has ignored my response so I extend arguments.Forth argumentPro fails to positively support any of his premises, hence the argument is just a bald assertion. The argument isn’t even logically (and hence deductively) valid, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.My brain for one, doesn’t seek God, and I am pretty sure it functions no less correctly than most people’s. Does that mean pro’s argument is debunked>References 1. http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...