To use faith as your reasoning for one specific god is irrational.

So far, my opponent has not even attempting an articulate argument for the rationality of god, he instead has chosen to do arguments that Foundationalism,Coherentism, Reliablism, and infintislism are based on faith. Even if we accept that, how does one get to belief in a specific god is rational. Well according to my opponent he can merely assert this is natural. He gives no reason he just asserts it. He fails to demonstrate a single reason to pick any god over another. He has just tried to attempt to show that several options are not any better, which by the way he has failed at doing so by showing a complete lack of understanding of occams razor. He is attempting a argument known as reductio ad absurdum, which may make sense if he was arguing that any god exists, but this debate is about picking a specific god. Which he has conveniently chosen not to address. This reductio ad absurdum is based on a false dichotomy, in order to be rational in picking a god, one must have a reason to pick one god over another. He has given known, it still stands on special pleading a logical fallacy. Until someone here can show me, where it is more rational to say "I have faith no god exists" then it is to simply assert that " I believe god exists." Then we are left in a rational position of withholding belief. Just as we do when flipping a coin. The problem my opponent has is he can't even do that in this debate based on faith alone. Let alone, trying to say one specific god out of the full dicnotomy of gods is worthy of belief in a rational sense. I am going to introduce Maranamacons. I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe in them based on his reasoning we all have to accept somehting on faith, and it is inevitable that we start somewhere so I start with Marananimacons as my presupposition. A Maranimacon is a non-god, fairy like creature responsible for the creation of the universe. When you understand why it is not reasonable to believe in them, even though my opponent argues that Foundationalism,Coherentism, Reliablism, and infintislism are based on faith, you will truly see how his argument fails. You can merely attack these 4 worldviews then assert any nonsense presupposition you want. He is chosing to say it is reasonable to believe in any god. If we are intellectually honest we know he wouldn't agree with this if the god was trickster. I am now going defend one of the 4 options as more reasonable then god, therefore making it the rational choice. I should not have to do this, as he should be showing that a god is rational, and this is clearly a red herring that Foundationalism is rational, last I checked that is not the debate. But, for the sake of not having much to talk about since my opponent has attacked 4 seperate worldviews and never addressed a specific god being a rational choice other then to assert it at the very end, here we go. My opponent defines Foundationalism as:1. FoundationalismFoundationalism is perhaps the most straight forward solution. It simply asserts that all justified true beliefs will ultimately be justified by basic beliefs, or presuppositions. These basic beliefs are not justified, but assumed, without logical proof or material evidence, i.e., faith. Thus, foundationalism solves the problem by explicitly relying on faith.This belief system is far superior to the god hypothesis in this way. When compared to god it has less baggage. We get down to a few properly basic beliefs such as induction, logic, and that our senses perceive reality. It does not add a extra step completely violating Occam's razor. Since Occams razor is a logical way to get at things, it make foundationalism a more rational choice then presupposing god. There is no need to go the extra step till the causes of these things are proven. It is a rationally better choice based on occams razor to function as if these things are brute facts of the universe. Again this argument should not be necessary because my opponent has not even attempted to demonstrate that a there is any rational reason to choice any specific god. Which again is the rub in this debate, its because faith is not a reasoning tool to do so. I ask the readers to ponder this question, was this debate about whether Foundationalism is based on faith? If no then why did my opponent bring it up? IS this debate about Coherentism based on faith? If no, again this is irrelevant to the topic. Is Reliablism based on faith the question being asked in this debate? NO, then ditto, and the same for INfintislism. Im sorry my opponent doesn't know what the debate is about. What god will I name next? Is it rational to pick one or to withhold judgement until one actually comes up. My opponent would have one believe that it is just as rational to arbitrarily pick one then to actually withhold judgement. He would do so by argung that other things are just as faith based. Never addressing whether it is rational. By the way it is Huitzilopochtli, guess you should have been more rational and witheld judgement. I would also ask you to consider this fact, he has never once even attempted to address the fallacy of special pleading, which he must use to choice between the dichotomy of gods to say a specific god is worth believing in, =. He has conveniently ignored this, while actually claiming to have addressed it. Look through his post, does he address the fallacy of special pleading. If something is fallacious thinking it is irrational. Again here is a list of gods:Yahweh, Thor, Huitzilopochtli, Jesus, Mythra, Allah, Trickster, Dionysus, Horus, Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti monster. You can presuppose any of them you choice, but your choice was special pleading that your favorite is the reason, and since its a logical fallacy to do so it is not reasonable. He can attempt to conflate the issue of gods with properly basic beliefs all day, properly basics should be as few as possible and only beliefs that have no possible way of being justified, but are required to function properly in what we call reality. Any specific god does not fit this definition, as people function normally all over the world without presupposing this. While that is quite clearly different then the assumption your senses percieve reality, logic works, and induction works. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...