Belief in religion and a creator are inductive arguments.

I find it amusing that my opponent feels that oxforddictionaries.com was an insufficient source for definitions, considering that it is from oxford dictionaries that all English definitions evolved. I find it even more amusing that he defined a word 'deductive' which is completely irrelevant to the resolution as well as using the word 'inductive' to define the word 'inductive'. A basic theory of defining words is not to use the word when you define it. This is paradoxical.I do, however, agree with his definitions of the two words that are actually relevant to this debate because it is simply a more complex mambo jumbo manner of expressing the oxford definitions.I shall reinforce my arguments and leave it to my opponent to even raise his case in any form or shape. He states that con has BOP but in reality this doesn't mean pro has only the role of negation, you actually have to explain why religion is based on inductive arguments.The assumption my opponent is making is that. Because arguments are either inductive or deductive, religion and most people's belief in it is based either on deductive arguments OR inductive. The issue here is that religion isn't anything to do with analytical mentality, it is to do with idealistic mentality, which is why converting children is far easier than that of an adult because children rely very little on logic in comparison and often a person grows up to age of 18 believing what they've been brought up to believe and only begins analysing it and questioning it in their 'logical' adulthood where one could observe that the right to consent, right to vote and right to drive all display mental maturity.The problem with the assumption that since one can either inductively argue that a creator and/or their religion is probable or deductively argue that there is no denying a creator or their religion. Truthfully, deductive believers have existed for millenia showed by terrorism and violence outbursts regarding religion in the history of mankind since probability was not the issue, CERTAINTY that THEY WERE THE ONLY GUARANTEED RELIGION was at the heart of it. Thus, there is actually more evidence, if we base it on behaviour of religious communities, that DEDUCTIVE arguments are what religion and belief in a creator are based on.The only reason my opponent seems to assume that belief in religion and a creator are based on inductive arguments is that there is zero proof for it. Well, there is actually zero 'guaranteed' proof for any belief at all, if this wasn't the case then no convicted criminals would later be released free on discovery that a wrong 'deductive' (now realised to be inductive) argument was in fact false and a major assumption. So yes, ALL LOGICAL BELIEFS EVER KNOWN TO MANKIND are based on inductive arguments.HOWEVER...If you went up to a Jehovah's Witness, Buddhist monk, Muslim Imam or even The Pope and his adherents and asked them are your beliefs in religion even logical to begin with? Are they even anything to do with probability and the analysing of evidence for and against God I can INDUCTIVELY argue that they would say "No, my belief in religion surpasses logical reasoning, without it I'd be lost." It is an entire guiding path for them in life a 'blinkering' of them as blinkers work on a horse to focus it on one path and prevent confusion. The horse rider doesn't give the horse blinkers to be cruel, they do it with the intention of focusing it on what they think is the least confusing path for whatever purpose it is walking for. People are journeying through life often lost. Relying on deductive OR inductive argumentation methods leaves them totally confused when there is literally zero proof and the concept is essentially unfalsifiable and unprovable simultaneously (as religion and a creator are). Thus, inductive argumentation is not at all what belief is based on it is merely an incessant urge to rid oneself of NEEDING ANY ARGUMENTATION METHOD at all ever. They just look at their scriptures or holy text and say ah, what a relief... I DONT HAVE TO THINK that way of life is predetermined for me woohoo! It's largely a method of laziness and search for purpose in a world of meaninglessness that drives belief in a creator and religion.Inductive argumentation is indeed a part of belief in a creator but to say this is anywhere near significant enough to be what they are base don is a very non-inductive argumentation in itself!