It is reasonable to Believe in A Personal God

I realize that my opponent is more skilled in the art of formal debating. I hope this round I can elaborate on points that I was trying to convey that fell short of what I had intended. I appreciate the spacing of con's R4. It assisted me in composing this round. Natural vs. NaturalI am not versed in philosophy, and I realize this is a philosophical debate, so I apologize for not grasping the way my opponent used the word natural. C1 Shifting BoP? I am not shifting the BoP, since it is shared. If it is unreasonable to believe in a personal God because the claim cannot be investigated thru 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 thru scientific methodology. Is it possible that scientific methodology is only applicable to the physical realm, and in that it isn't always predictable? Is con claiming that only things that can be proven 100% by scientific methods should be given any credence? C2 Discernment of Internal Stimuli One can differentiate thru discernment, and individuals who experience such phenomenon can sense the intention of the entity in which they are in communication. Not very scientific, I know, but if following one's intuition in regards to using discernment when in communication with an unseen force, brings forth a positive result, than to believe it is a personal God is not unreasonable. Only the schizophrenic or individual who hears internal voices him/herself could distinguish between an episode and another source (God) of communication is my point. As a matter of contention, I would argue that a schizophrenic/paracusic would be the most equipped to discern whether a voice is the usual chatter, divine or even induced by modern technology. If technology was developed that could relay voices into one's mind, a schizophenic/paracusic would possibly be less likely to be duped. Proof is the dictate of science and law; Faith is the dictate of conscience and gnosis. What is reasonable to someone who believes; is unreasonable to someone who requires proof. There doesn't have to be a consensus for what is reasonable, in order for an individual to gain something for what they reasonably believe. If someone follows an inner voice, (or conscience) and receives positive results, how is it unreasonable to believe it is the guidance of a personal God? I realize now that this should have been my main argument all along. Non-sequitur?Emmarie R3: “The fact that not all voices of those who are labeled with schizophrenia seem to derive from God disproves cons contention that those who claim that God communicates with them are having schizophrenic episodes.” xvyz R4: "This was definitely not my argument. My claim was not at all that an invariable symptom of schizophrenia was a claim of divine communication. It was that how could one distinguish between a schizophrenic episode and divine communication Pro’s statement is an utter non-sequitur." If one (who isn't schizophrenic) can attribute a schizophrenic episode to being mistaken for the voice of God, but not all schizophrenics claim to be in communication with the divine during a schizophrenic episode, than it stands to reason that a schizophrenic episode is equivocal as far as rationalizing it to be mistaken for communication from God.