Belief in god is rational.

As round 5 commences, Con states that if a belief keeps the individual sane, as opposed to the insanity that would commence if the person did not uphold this belief then this does not warrant the rationality of the belief itself. I would argue that if someone goes insane, they'd never be capable of rational thought in the first place and so to avoid that trap at all costs is indeed a rational thing to do. Thus, if someone believes in God to remain sane and happy so as to avoid becoming so insane that they are never capable of rational thought again, they are indeed having a rational belief for the belief is rational to have, regardless of the validity of the claim being believes. The point my opponent makes about numbers doesn't counter the fact that believing in them is a rational thing to do despite their nonexistence. My opponent concedes that there is no more evidence for an atom's existence than there is of a god's existence and since they claimed believing in atoms to be rational the entire debate, believing in the existence of a god must also be rational. I am not sure how a square circle is synonymous to god and will negate this due to lack of any validation on Con's part to justify that erroneous simile. I will now explain why science does not explain the origin of everything and only explains how everything after the origin works, rather than the origin of all matter and energy itself. First let's work out what science does not do [http://undsci.berkeley.edu...]. Science does not cover morality, include anything in regards to a supernatural origin to the universe nor explain how to actually use science itself to reach conclusions in the first place. All of this is left up to the one interpreting the data that the scientific process gives them and to make their own, subjective, conclusions (although a lot of scientists like to think of their conclusions as 'objective' but in reality it's only correct according to their brain's subjective interpretation of supposedly objective data). Now let's see what science can't do in terms of explaining things. http://powertochange.com... It can't prove that you are not a brain-in-a-vat, it can't prove that morals exist, it can't prove that logic is valid, it can't prove that Barack Obama was President of 2008 and it can't prove that any experience, such as the sighting of Jesus was actually true or false. Thus, science has no place in discussing the origin of the universe and I have successfully countered the rebuttal that Con made regarding this claim. Following this, Con states that although both atoms and gods are concepts, atoms have a physical presence. Yet, I stated in round one that Con has neither seen, heard, felt, smelt nor tasted an individual atom, independent of others in their life. All that Con has done is sensed physical objects that he/she has blind faith in being the sum of many atoms. God does not need to be physically present to generate physical activity any more than the consciousness of the voters on this debate has to be physical to influence their decision of how they vote. Occam's razor actually contradicts itself because to conclude that Occam's razor is true is to assume that adding Occam's razor to a set of possibilities will render the right one. Using Occam's razor, in itself is an unnecessary additional burden that the one seeking an answer is doing and thus Occam's razor would deem them unnecessarily complicating the answer by using an unnecessary razor to find it. Occam's razor is paradoxical and self-defeating and is thus negligible. In conclusion, belief in god is just as rational as the belief in atoms which Con has asserted is rational.