Belief in religion and a creator are inductive arguments.

I have no idea why con has tried to change my resolution. Amendment rejected.I will also post my own definitions since I don't think my opponents are good enough for the average reader that doesn't know what the words mean.Belief- Acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty. http://www.bing.com...Inductive- An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.http://www.iep.utm.edu...Deductive-A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.http://www.iep.utm.edu...My opponents entire case seems to support my proposition that religion and belief in a creator is based on inductive argumentation being the argument from probability. He admits the belief has little to do with any kind of logical facts. So that means since there are no facts there are only inferences and arguments from probability to defend the belief. I will agree to some point that humans want to feel right. However I do not agree that this is a major reason for religion and belief in god. He is absolutely correct when he states, "Emotions and feelings are the foundation of religious belief in a creator or simply in religion itself. Inductive arguments only help strengthen it." This is the absolute truth due to the fact that their are no facts in the religious argument. They are convinced due to their emotions and feelings with no logic may I remind you. Inductive arguments also does help strengthen religious beliefs simply because inductive arguments are the only arguments that support religion at all.My opponent also seems to be narrowing the scope of this debate by limiting the religions discussed to Buddhism and Hinduism. This debate is discussing all monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs and any other religion. The main reasons people accept religion is because people believe by following religious principles they will find the highest sense of morality,comfort from a higher being,prospects for life after death, to justify the presence of evil in the world,and for comfort that there is a more peaceful existence if you do x and y how the creator tells them to. I have to ask what facts does a religious person have to belief a religion can do any of this? NONE! Therefore all of these reasons are inductive reasons to believe such things. How does a person then deduce all the thousands of religions out there and figure out witch one is the truth? I will tell you how, they can't. It's simply impossible in anyone's lifetime.As for karma I believe karma is based on the concept of revenge. To me revenge is not a quality of a peaceful god. If I as a human being can not want revenge for a mass murder or injustice then so can a god to a higher degree. I see this religious concept as a reward for good behavior.As for most if not all religions. Their god is portrayed as a peaceful or just god. If this is true then why does this god punish us enternaly for the sins that god gave us the inevitable ability to do? I don't think stealing a banana is justified for burning in a fiery hell or suffering eternally for something that that god did to me for its own selfish reasons. What I just said is mainly aimed at Christianity but applies to all religions.Now all the facts I have presented supports my case that religion and belief in a creator are inductive arguments. Since this is true a pro vote is logical response to this debate.