There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God

Thank you JayShay. I just want to clarify that my remark "It requires a knowledge of many variables and the extent of a domain." was for Non-Deontological Justification. My opponent has elected to debate this resolution, I spent the majority of my first round elaborating on what constitutes reasonable beliefs. An argument that presents itself with valid structure, sound inferences and true premises is then considered a reasonable argument. This does not necessitate 2 rational people to agree on the conclusion of an argument. And logic doesn't actually discern if something is true or false. It is the study of inferences so we can discern if an argument is rational. 1R. Goedel's Ontological Argument. Here my opponent opposes accepting the axioms the argument is based on. They attempt to illustrate that accepting the axiom as "true" is irrational because it might not be so. No one denies that there is doubt in the acceptance of any premise or statement. But doubt alone doesn't infer irrational. In fact denying a premise on the grounds of doubt is an appeal to emotion not reasoning. Pro asserts "We simply do not have enough knowledge pertaining to the universe we live in, nor do we know the extent of the universe's domain". So when we don't have an accurate knowledge of the domain to utilize Non-Deontological Justification, we can use Deontological Justification. Which states we are justified in believing "P" is true if we are not obligated in refraining from believing "P". As my opponent said we can not use NDJ because "we have never experienced another world". So the question becomes in regards to the Axiom 4 "If a property is positive it is positive in all worlds." Are we obligated to refrain from accepting #4 as true? Since this is the burden of my opponent I look forward to him substantiating that we are obligated to refrain from doing so. 2R Macbook tool for Goedel's Ontological Argument. Pro asserts that the macbook is a tool made by people bias to concluding God Exists. Pro goes on to imply the computer, as a tool, calculating the argument as valid is meaningless. Because humans created computers. The way the computer was programmed had nothing to do with the context of the Argument. The programming followed Modal Logical rules. No matter what argument it was asked to evaluate it would do so in accordance to the rules of Modal Logic. It doesn't matter how hard any one wants 2+2 to equal 6. Plug those numbers into a calculator which does addition in binary format, the result will be 4. In this case the Scientist plugged in the Formal Argument of Goedels. Meaning the statements were replaced with symbols. And the Macbook programming merely addressed whether the inferences between the statements was valid. The form in which this argument is formalized could have many arguments it represents. If the symbols were replaced with words with the same properties and same interactions the result would be the same sound implication. The Program would only again arrive at the same conclusion "The argument is valid". Pro then states the argument is circular, suggesting the argument concludes God exists because it begins with "God is greatest existing thing". The argument is one of object-property relationship. If there are positive properties, then one positive property would be to have all positive properties. That would conclude in the necessary existence of a perfect being with all positive properties. The conclusion follows from the concept of "positive property" and the idea of exemplifying properties by entailing them with others. A perfect necessary being is the conclusion not the beginning of the argument. 3R Kalam Argument Pro's main contention seems to arise with " if God (who is believed to be the most complex thing) did not need a cause, is it so ridiculous to postulate that the universe did not need a cause?" Here he conflates complex with needing a cause. A premise that is not asserted in the Kalam argument. Rather the Kalam argument begins with the observation of causality, in addition with a long regression must stop at the first moment of time in this universe, to imply a cause that is not from within this universe. Complexity of the universe has no bearing on it's temporally finite property. Which is reasoned from astronomical observations and intuition. 4R Moral Argument Maybe Pro can be specific in their contention. At any rate I want to state that the beginning of many Moral arguments presuppose categorization of actions as "good" or "bad". While Pro asserts Moral behavior can come about without God, arguments attempting to affirm so presuppose such axioms as "harm is bad" or "empathy is good". Even arguments without God incur the use of axioms. While I think the majority of people will accept "Pain is bad for you" this is an appeal to emotion, over any rational thinking. At any point offering a counter argument is not demonstrating or substantiating that the Moral Argument is irrational. 5R Doubt A recurring theme in Pro contentions with the Theist arguments is not that they are irrational. But that they are not certain, contain doubt, same observations could have arisen through some other means. It's been said, "Only one thing in life is certain and that is that nothing is certain." We operate rationally with doubt. Logical arguments abductive or inductive conclude admitting there is some doubt. Pro suggests that because they can compose a counter argument that the Theist argument is flawed and illogical. This simply is not how we discern if an argument is reasonable or not. Pro's counter arguments are just other arguments that derive a different conclusion from the same evidence. They don't negate the rationale or reasoning in any other argument. There is no casual interaction between Pro asserting an hypothesis and Theist asserting a different hypothesis. One great thing about using Logic as a tool to help formalize our reasoning is that it works with doubt and uncertainty. It allows us to come to rationale conclusions despite the emotional trauma of fear, doubt, or the unknown. Just because something is asserted doesn't make it certain. If Pro wishes to, they can walk around prefixing all of their statements with "possibly" or "likely". Pro likely exists. Pro possibly is wearing a T-shirt. ect... But this uncertainty or counter hypothesis do nothing to illustrate an illogical inference or irrational line of thought with arguments that conclude "God exists". In my First round I took great strides to elaborate that if Pro wants to resolve the resolution "There is No Rational Reason to Believe in God" they must demonstrate more accurately where: 1. There is an obligation to refrain from accepting an Axiom as true 2. The premises are contrary to fact 3. The inferences are invalid I believe he has failed to demonstrate so. My main argument stands. Goedel's Ontological Argument. 1. There is no reason to refrain from accepting the Axioms as "True" 2. The premises derive from an understanding of object-property and are epistemologically factual. 3. Inference are valid as confirmed by Modal Logic program. Thank you JayShay, I await a great round of rebuttals.