It is reasonable to Believe in A Personal God

I didn't read my opponent's argument as of yet. I wanted to follow the format that he laid out to the bast of my ability and save my rebuttal of his argument for R3. He stated in R1 that the pro side should state positive argumentation, and not just negate his claims, so I am basing my argument solely on his definitions of Reasonable, Personal, and God, as well as the definition of Reality that I provided. Contention 1The human conscious is vulnerable to the influences of Hyperreality. Hyperreality differs from actual reality but yet those who are engulfed in it are not called into question for the unreasonableness that the effects of it have on their expectations in life. For a full explanation of Hyperreality this link provides more info. https://en.wikipedia.org...;It is important to define another term Hyperreality that I will be expounding upon during this debate. It is imperative to discuss the term in order to differentiate it from the definition of Reality and to understand the kinds of creations that hyper-reality involves and its effects on human consciousness."In semiotics and postmodernism, hyperreality is an inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from a simulation of reality, especially in technologically advanced postmodern societies. Hyperreality is seen as a condition in which what is real and what is fiction are seamlessly blended together so that there is no clear distinction between where one ends and the other begins." https://en.wikipedia.org...; We can see by it's definition, that hyperreality is anything but reality, but is a method of tricking one's consciousness into believing in something that isn't real, is real. It is man's attempt at filling the void of believing in God, from within, in my personal opinion. Hyperreality is a type of simulation based on desires one has that cannot be realized in the realm of the here and now = reality. People go thru great measures to entertain themselves using hyperealistic devices, usually for pleasure or for entertainment purposes. Those who both create hyperrealistic devices and those who employ their uses are not deemed unReasonable for doing so, yet those who believe a power greater than ourselves created both our surroundings as well as our own beings, (as well as the Greater Beings ability to communicate to and thru his creation) are to be deemed unreasonable according to my opponent. Is it really unreasonable to behold the land, water, sky, plants, animals, and most of all human beings, who in their own facilities posses the ability to design and create, and not fathom that some greater being is responsible? No it is natural.Contention 2 I haven't gathered any evidence to support my next contention, but I can imagine that religions may have been the first to impose hyperreality on the human conscious. There motivation for doing so may have been to conform groups of people to a common belief to better control the resources and make the division of labor and goods more feasible. Religion is not however a belief in God. It is in my opinion that it's unreasonable to believe in any form of hyperreality and organized religion may be just that, but a yearning to understand who we are and why we are here is an inquiry that most thinking minds do ponder, and it seems probable (if not discouraged by hyperrealities of technology or religion) that individual inquiry may lead to the belief in a Greater Being, God, who can influence individuals from within. This is not unreasonable to believe, if we look at the complexity of our environment and the workings of our own minds.When I mention that it is not unreasonable to believe in a personal God, it doesn't necessitate that I am referring to the God of the three major monotheistic religions of the world. I am referring to the Creative Energy that spawned the Laws that govern our existence like physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics. For there to be such laws that all of science is based on there must be some kind of order that governs their predictability. These Laws were discovered by humans, but humans didn't create them, so why do humans conclude in many instances that is unreasonable to believe that there is a Greater Being who did create them, and still exists somewhere with in time and space and is even able to communicate with us on a level that we can't currently measure. What we individually believe affects our actions. Our actions in return affect our environment as well as other humans and creatures. The butterfly effect IS real. Let's take for example the woman who watches too much dramatization of relationships on television. The Wikipedia entry I cited mentions this so I thought it would be a good example to expand upon. Because she views relationships thru the writers' dramatizations, and her consciousness identifies with them as if they are real she may place value on those types of relationships in her own life. She may be completely out of touch with what her partner or children think or feel. She could project story lines into relationships, or she could possible become bored with the monotony of day to day life to the point that she cheats on her spouse.The types of people who become engulfed in the hypereality of the dramatizations of movies or television, can also be eager for dramas to occur, such as the need for medical attention, or other tragedies. These are the types who seem to thrive during relatives hospitalizations or funerals. If they were in touch with the reality that many who believe in a personal God are, they would relate more somberly on such occasions.My point is that the consciousness can't distinguish hyperreality from reality, even if the rational mind claims it knows something is only a movie for example. No one is deemed unreasonable for carrying on lengthy conversations about recollecting movies, but according to my opponent, someone is unreasonable for believing that God communicates thru other living beings or nature or thru their own inner workings. My question is why is this so? We all share DNA, we aren't hardwired to technology. Why is it more unreasonable to to believe that who ever created the spark of life that allows our DNA to multiply thru reproduction, also has the means to communicate with us thru spiritual means, than to believe that hyperreality that the consciousness has difficultly distinguishing from reality, is beneficial to living productive meaningful lives?ConclusionI realize that my opponent may consider my contentions which are based on differentiating hyperreality from reality to be a strawman, and that the resolution of this debate is that it is reasonable to believe in a personal God. I have provided the definition of hyperreality and how it may be related to religion as well as how it is used in entertainment / technology to demonstrate that believing in a personal God isn't unreasonable in comparison to unknowingly allowing ones' consciousness to be influenced by factors meant to manipulate with inner working of the human mind.If we were free and clear of all influences beyond reality - - the natural tendency would be to behold the complexity of our environment, and seek communion (inner knowledge) with the source of it's creation - GOD.