It is reasonable to Believe in A Personal God

I would like to offer a few terse rebuttals/clarifications before I offer my closing statement. Natural:This would explain why pro and I were talking past each other. The crux of my argument was that we can only investigate claims in the natural realm, and since God is transcendent to this, we cannot investigate this claim, and as such we cannot establish the reasonability of this claim. BoP: my apologies, this was in the context of an argument from ignorance, so my brain defaulted to shifting the BoP. I should have said moving the goal posts. I have not been discussing anything in terms of certainty; I have been discussing things in terms of reasonability, and as such, pro stating I need to completely disprove the supernatural, is to effectively move the goal posts from reasonability to certainty. " If it is unreasonable to believe in a personal God because the claim cannot be investigated through scientific methodology; than it is equally reasonable - for those who hear voices - to believe that those voices are of a divine nature because the claim cannot be disprove through scientific methodology. "I'm not attempting to be derisive or rude, but I'm at a loss. I have argued that claims need to be demonstrated as reasonable, as a prerequisite to one being reasonably justified in believing a claim is true. I just explained last round why the assertion that something needs to be disproved, or otherwise it is reasonable, is a fallacious argument from ignorance. Furthermore, pro just made the exact same argument. As I have argued ad nauseum, through my elephant analogy, claims need not be disproved, they need to be substantiated before belief in them can be established as rational. Keeping this in mind, I have reasonably established that we can only investigate natural claims, meaning that one cannot investigate supernatural claim, entailing that one cannot establish a supernatural claim as reasonable, and therefore it is not reasonable to believe supernatural propositions. This is definitely not set in stone. If pro would have offered an alternative epistemological framework for somehow investigating supernatural claims, that would have been something. In the absence of an alternative framework, the crux of pro's argument is an argument from ignorance. Also, just for clarity, an argument from ignorance is defined as the assertion that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false. In this context, pro has stated that, because I have not disproved God, or the supernatural, then they are reasonable, and once again, this is not how we assess claims. Discernment:Pro is guilty of affirming the consequent. It is the claim that if someone has been communicated with by God, then the cause can be discerned. Pro is arguing p>q,q>p. The only derivation to be made is the contrapositive(p>q then ~p>~q). It could be the case that someone could be communicated with by God, and that the cause could not be discerned, which I have argued. As such, the structure of this argument is invalid. Leaving this aside, pro states that someone suffering from auditory hallucinations, is most qualified to discern the actual source. The problem with this, is that by definition there is no actual source. This is precisely what it means to hallucinate, response to non-existent stimuli. So one discerning between a categorically non-existent stimuli, and a categorically unverifiable stimuli(at least categorically as so far that I have argued, without encountering adequate refutation) could not distinguish between the two. Wishful thought:just because I believe something and it provides benefits doesn't mean that it's reasonable. Pro has equivocated beneficial and reasonable. I could believe that I have fairy god parents, and this belief could provide comfort and joy, however per the established definition of reasonable, that something comports with reality, a belief in fairy god parents is demonstrable unreasonable, as well as a belief in a personal God. Non-sequitur: 1. Non-schizophrenics don't have schizophrenic episodes.2. I'm not sure how to interpret this, but as far as I can tell, this is exactly my point. One could never substantiate the assertion that they have been communicated with by God, because this is indistinguishable from an auditory hallucination, and as such the assertion that one has been the recipient of divine communication is unreasonable. Closing:I have argued two basic contentions:1- We can only investigate claims in the natural world.2- One could not reasonably distinguish between divine communication and auditory hallucinations or paracusia if one wants to be fancy. I believe I have substantiated both of these claims. If God is transcendent to the natural world, we cannot meaningfully investigate claims pertaining to God, and as such they cannot be established as reasonable, and as an entailment, it is unreasonable to believe in a God, especially a personal one. I have also argued that divine communication is indistinguishable from paracusia, because a categorically unverifiable stimuli, and non-existent stimuli are indistinguishable. I would to thank pro for engaging in this debate, and giving me a rigorous welcome back into the debate community. I don't just debate to win, I debate to learn, and I can honestly say I have definitely gained some new knowledge from pro's rounds, and as such I am very grateful. This being said, pro has not offered any adequate refutations to my arguments, and as such I have upheld the BoP, and affirmed the resolution. It is unreasonable to believe in a personal God.