belief is unresonable

I’ll do my arguments this round and rebuttals in the next, thanks to Pro for offering the debate. Terms In the first round, Pro had not specified any terms as to what he defines as ”belief” and what he defines as “unreasonable” so I’ll bring up the definitions of the words from the dictionary to base the rest of my arguments upon: Belief: “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Or a trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something” [1] Unreasonable: “not guided by or based on good sense. Or [something] beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness.” [2] Sources 1. https://www.google.ca... 2. https://www.google.ca... 3. https://www.psychologytoday.com... Arg 1: Science is based on belief. Whether or not one chooses to accept the terms previously stated, the fact still remains that belief is not an exclusively religious conflict. Everyone in some form has faith or belief in something, whether it be religious or not. Science is to a degree based on belief or faith. Since science I primarily based off observations [2]. For example, take a look at the scientific method It is, mostly based off observations. The hypothesis is an claim based off belief because it came before the actual experiment was done. The conclusions were made due to observations of the experiment. And the conclusion itself is the belief that one’s original hypothesis (or theory developed afterwards) is true. Whether or not said belief is based off of any evidence or observation, it still stands that such a conclusion is a belief. Yet just because a person has that belief, doesn’t make it false or untrue. In fact, most theories or conclusions undergoing this method have been based on various experiements and observations , hence are fairly reasonable. Sense they are within the boundaries of what is plausible or what is acceptable. Hence, to say belief or all belief is unreasonable is to also say that science is unreasonable, despite the fact that most scientific theories were made as a result of logical observations. Sources: 1. 2. http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org... Arg 2: Logic is based on belief. All logical systems are based off a series of postulates [1], things we suggest or assume to be true as a basis of further reasoning [2]. Without postulates, we would have nothing to base our logic from. Postulates or axioms have to be taken with some form of faith as long as it works within the system, if rejected, the system collapses. Euclidian geometry is almost wholly based off axioms/postulates [2], and Euclidian geometry is also the foundation to many other branches of math. These axiom include: “1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points. 2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely in a straight line. 3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center. 4. All right angles are congruent. “ [2] To give another example of axioms in math, take a look at the development of different studies math over the centuries: Once more, the earliest branches of math are based on the “foundational elements” which are axioms. The very foundation of math is hence based off of axioms. Axioms are based on belief. However, without beliefs such as postulates, systems of logic such as math and the scientific method would not be able to stand. As both are based off observations. Human observation is flawed and limited. A man that can see colour and says “the sky is blue” has as much merit to that observation as a colour blind man that says “the sky is grey”. Hence, belief is required for logical systems to exist. Therefore, belief is reasonable to have. Sources: 1. 2. http://mathworld.wolfram.com... 3. http://www.homolog.us...