Believing in a religion is illogical

Thank you for responding. Before I begin, I'd like to note the theme Pro has had: Absoluteness. He believes that in order to be logical, one must examine every possibility before making a decision. He thinks that in order for something to be logical, it has to be 99% probable. He thinks that in order to be a religious person, you must believe 100%, and never doubt. All of these standards are ridiculously flawed. Not only have I presented quotes saying you don't have to be correct to be logical, I'm sure this standard makes no sense to you either. Let me go through some of the Cross-Examination questions. CX1. Sherlock holmes is sometimes logical. My opponent, by answering this way, is contradicting himself. On one hand he's saying that something has to be 99.9% probable to be logical, and yet he believes Sherlock Holmes is sometimes logical. Sherlock Holmes makes a lot of risky deductions which are certainly not as accurate as Pro seems to want. 2. >>> "Yes you could assume logically that he probably owns a house on that property"And Christians assume logically that there probably is a God. Once again my opponent is contradicting his 99% standard. 3. If you're uncertain even for a moment about your faith, Pro seems to think that makes you agnostic. I'll refute this later.4. Hmmm, yet again Pro contradicts himself. I said evolution is mathematically improbable, and Pro never responded to this. 5. Once again this contradicts many things Pro has said.6. No comment.7. This doesn't make sense. Inductive reasoning provides no way to be certain you are correct. There is no way to know if it is logical, therefore, because the point of inductive reasoning is to assume certain facts based on what you've seen. All the definitions and quotes I've brought up support Inductive reasoning being logical, whether or not it's correct.Answer to Pro's question: Apologetic arguments, historic evidence, the fact that some faiths seem more logical to certain people... There are many reasons a person would choose one religion over another.Moving on>>> "It is impossible to be illogical under my opponent's view, since he asserts that you can choose which cases to consider in order to make a proposition logical. My opponent believes you can just ignore any premise to prove your point, and you're still being logical." My opponent has incorrectly represented my point. First of all, in my point of view, you can be illogical by engaging in logical fallacies such as appeal to authority, etc. I believe if you are using logic correctly with the facts you know to create ideas, you are behaving logically. >>> "Yes, you do need to consider every case in order to be truly logical."This is literally impossible. There could be infinite cases in your choice. You decide one day you need groceries. You could leave now, but there is a possibility that your husband/wife is driving near the store already. So you call them to make sure. That's one possibility covered. There's also the possibility that the store is out of milk, which you need. So now you have to choose which store. That's maybe 7 possibilities. But what if a bomb goes off in new york city, and someone driving in front of you driving hears about it in the radio and brakes abruptly, causing an accident? Well, that's certainly something to consider. But you couldn't have known about it. So it's not illogical that you left the house to get groceries, since you already considered the necessary possibilities. There are infinite possibilities in each choice, and it is impossible to be logical with Pro's viewpoint. 1. Apologetics>>> "Again, I remind the audience that con is begging the question, a huge argumentative fallacy"This is not circular reasoning. I am saying belief in religion can be logical because it can be defended with logical arguments. This is not at all "begging the question". >>> "I can also disprove my opponents example of apologetics almost instantly from one faulty premise :"And this is why I did not want to bring up an apologetic argument: as I said and pro ignored; "I am not saying this argument necessarily proves a certain religion, but it's persuasive enough for some people to logically conclude it's true and believe."I would rather not get involved in a large apologetic argument because that is completely irrelevant to my point. Let me repeat my point:"Belief in religion can be logical because it can be defended with logical arguments."Let's move on to the argument of whether or not you can be logical: but incorrect. >>> "You cannot arrive at any incorrect conclusions by using flawless logic."I don't think Pro understands the important of evidence. He brushed aside my evidence as if he is somehow smarter. Let me provide a Ph.D. in Philosophy to disprove my opponent:"an argument can have good logic, strictly speaking, even if its premises are false." [1]Would you rather trust Pro, or a Ph.D. in philosophy? Also trust what makes sense: the fact that you can be using logic correctly, even if you are incorrect.Pro brought back the example of mathematics. I'm glad he likes math, but that's not the only type of logic that exists. The fact that he had to use the adjective Flawless before logic shows that you can be logical without flawless logic. Otherwise he wouldn't need the adjective. The resolution is not: "Belief in a religion is belief in the improbable". The resolution is "Belief in religion is ILLOGICAL". >>> "You're an agnostic at this point by definition, because the definition of an agnostic is doubting, or being skeptical of, the existence of a supernatural deity on some level. The level is not specified to an exact quantity."I find it odd that Pro quoted a source which said nothing of "level". "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God." Nowhere does it say level, it actually shows that agonstics are completely against religion. Since when are agonstics people who doubt religion even the tiniest bit? >>> Faith and religionThe resolution is whether belief in a religion is illogical, not whether faith in a religion is illogical. My opponent is arguing against faith, not belief. >>> "Therefore, since nothing in reality is 100% accurate, my opponent has defeated his own argument, because faith requires certainty, and nothing is ever completely certain. My opponent agrees that nothing is truly certain."Remember, we're arguing belief, not religion. And you don't have to 100% believe a religion to believe in it. And also by this argument my opponent is illogical in believing in gravity, because "nothing is truly certain". >>> Probability of religionPro asserted that I dropped this argument. If you scroll up you'll see I dedicated a headline to it and addressed it briefly. First, I said evolution is also improbable (not responded to), and second, I said that there is historical evidence and there are apologetic arguments that can tip the scales in favor of a certain religion. Dropped arguments:1. Inductive ReasoningPro never directly responded to this argument in his last speech. I've already proven with multiple sources that inductive reasoning IS LOGICAL.2. Definition of BeliefI said in my last speech that because the definition of belief says that belief includes evidence to support the belief, so thus believing in a religion assumes that there is evidence to support it. (Go ahead and scroll up to read the full version).RecapMy opponent is too focused on absolutes. Any person who believes in a religion will remember a time they doubted it slightly. That doesn't make them agnostic. Something doesn't have to be 99.9% probable to be logical. And as the Ph.D in Philosophy said: You can be logical without being correct. 1. Bears can fly2. Lassie is a bear3. Lassie can flyWell, bears can't fly, but this is still logical: Just incorrect.Sources:1. http://instruct.westvalley.edu...