The belief in (Christian) Heaven is both unscientific and unreasonable

*For clarity, when my opponent says that he rejects the additional restrictions that I placed on his argument, I will assume that he refers to 'I would like to add that this debate is not about the morality of a belief in Heaven, nor about the potential comfort that it can bring people, nor on the value of faith.' The first part of my opponent's argument consists in trying to explain why my argument is supposedly fallacious, and he does so by presenting two points, which I will address in the same order that he did: Point 1: His first point is basically that if I can not prove that logic is the only way to reason, then I can not say that something that goes against logic is necessarily unreasonable. But this statement is fundamentally flawed because he is basically asking me to prove that the definition of reason is correct, which is nonsensical; definitions are necessarily correct. (I take my definition of reason from the International Journal of Philosophical Studies, but probably any definition you will find will go in the same sense). My opponent seems to think that logic and reason are on the same level, but they are not; logic is a subset of reason; when you use logic, you are, by definition, reasoning. Reason is in fact the process by which we apply logic. Point 2: His second point is flawed in the same way that his first point was; he is asking me to prove that something that isn't in accordance with the facts is unreasonable, when that is the very definition of reason. Now my opponent could reject the definition of reason, but that would make this debate very hard to continue, UNLESS he can provide me with an alternate definition that is equally accepted, in which case I will try to argue in accordance with it. Now on to his own arguments. As far as I can see, my opponent seems to agree with me on the issue that the belief in a Christian Heaven is indeed unscientific, so I will concentrate on the second issue. He starts by saying that the belief in something that is impossible or absurd can be reasonable, which is something I find quite peculiar since they are mutually exclusive, precisely because reason is based on facts (and an impossible fact is an oxymoron). My opponent then goes on to explain how the concept of an afterlife as always been present in the history of humankind, which is something I would tend to agree with, and explains how 'The belief is reasonable because it spawned from a reasonable fear of death.'. Although i will concede that the fear of death is reasonable in itself (because it is based on the fact of death), I fail to see how hoping that something will prevent death from happening can be considered reasonable. My opponent seems to be confusing the terms 'reasonable belief' with 'justified hopes', which are very distinct things. It's a bit like saying 'I WISH the Montreal Canadians would win the Stanley Cup therefore I BELIEVE that they will win the Stanley Cup'. My opponent asks 'How then can my opponent claim that the belief in a Christian heaven is unreasonable? On what basis and on what grounds?' I claim that the belief in a Christian Heaven is unreasonable based on the fact that it does not meet the criteria of a reasonable belief. The fact that it seems to be ingrained in our humanity (which is not true for everyone) could explain why so many people believe in it, but does not say anything about whether or not it is a reasonable belief.