It is more rational to believe the Easter Bunny exists than the god of the Jews/Christians/Muslims

Thank you Con for your response. I will begin by addressing Con's Argument 2. The topic of this debate is whether it is more rational to believe in the Easter Bunny than Yahweh. Con's argument 2 doesn't actually address the topic of the debate. "God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe." Wrong topic. If the debate was, "Which is a better explanation for the universe, the Easter Bunny or Yahweh?" Then Con's argument would be on point. Unfortunately this isn't the case. I'm going to simply dismiss Con's argument 2 for not being the subject of the agreed upon debate. Con's point 1 Here he acknowledges a difference between PTs and QPTs. But then later introduces these traits as "natural" traits and "super natural" traits. Con, "we cannot be sure of what are natural traits..." The source of the traits is also off point. The distinction that is being made is between traits that we KNOW can exist in the universe we live in and traits that we DON'T KNOW can exist in the universe we live in. There is an important difference here. Example, the man behind the door is 6 feet tall. We KNOW that male humans can be 6 feet tall. This is a PT for human males. Different example, the man behind the door is shaped like a perfect circle. This is a QPT. We DON'T KNOW that human males can be shaped like a perfect circle. The latter claim should be held in a more tentative position since the trait may not be available in the universe we live in. I've argued and demonstrated why PTs are in a stronger position than QPTs. Con at no point refuted this argument. I argued that since the Easter Bunny has at least a few (and many more if we wish to completely think about what makes an Easter Bunny) PTs that this places the Eater Bunny in a more probable position then Yahweh who consists entirely of QPTs. This valid point still stands. If Con wishes to refute this position he must argue Yahweh's traits place him in a stronger position. This has yet to be attempted. I want to quickly jump back to Con's argument 2 for a moment. I think we could all agree that Yahweh does consist of traits that we cannot confirm as being possible (aka thought without a brain) in the universe we live in. It is very reasonable to think that only things with physical brains are capable of forming thoughts. We have no evidence to suggest otherwise. If this is an impossible trait, then Yahweh cannot exist. Therefore Yahweh cannot be the best explanation for anything. Con must first argue that Yahweh can have the traits that make up Yahweh. Con simply assumes that QPTs are available to Yahweh. This is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse mistake. Prior to Yahweh being able to exist, the traits that make up Yahweh must be able to exist. This hasn't be established to be the case anywhere on the planet. Therefore to claim Yahweh is the best solution to any question requires many QPTs assumptions. Of which Con hasn't argued for. Con assumes QPTs are available despite them being in question, the Q in the QPT is simply dismissed by Con without justification. Con acknowledges a difference between PTs and QPTs. Then goes on to suggest that a QPT should be viewed as equal to a PTs. "If we are more sure trait A exists as opposed to trait B, this does not make trait A stronger and trait B weaker." He brings up weight here, which isn't the type of strength I'm referring to. My claim is that KNOWN trait options is a stronger position the UNKNOWN trait options, when we consider the probability of the being in question existing. Which is more reasonable? Women behind door is 5 feet tall. All known PTs. The women behind the door is 120 feet tall. 120 tall is a QPT. Which is more reasonable to believe in? First women or second women? I think Con would agree that the second option is less likely to be true. This at least for the moment, confirms my claim that PTs hold a stronger (not by weight or physical strength) probable position then QPTs. If Con disagrees, then I would like to hear Con explain and argue for why he is in disagreement. Con's summary 3 is completely off base. Once again we are examining beings with claimed traits. We are also comparing known available traits to unknown available traits. Con brings back "natural" traits and "super natural" traits. The source of the traits isn't part of the discussion. A funny point here, Cons asserts super natural traits as being available. Has this been established to be the case? No. Super natural traits are also QPTs. Con ask a question also. "...how does it follow from God's having only supernatural characteristics that He therefore is irrational?" Two problems here. One, my claim is that it is more rational to believe in the Easter Bunny. Both beliefs may be rational. I'm claiming one is more rational. Second, I never claimed Yahweh to be irrational. If the claims regarding Yahweh are true, then I would think Yahweh would be a rational being. Once again Con seems to be off topic. A little math Easter Bunny, (PT)(PT)(QPT)(QPT)=some level of possible existence Yahweh, (QPT)(QPT)(QPT)(QPT)(QPT)(QPT)=less likely to exist then the Easter Bunny Based on more claimed traits and that some of the traits that the Easter Bunny has hold a stronger probable position than that of Yahweh who consists of all QPTs. Therefore the Easter Bunny is more probable and therefore more rational to believe in. What I've essentially presented is an Occam's Razor argument. As I've shown in round two and three, the Easter Bunny is a much less extravagant being. The Eater Bunny is an Animal. Yahweh is a spirit. The Easter Bunny is made of physical stuff. Yahweh is made of nothing. The Easter Bunny cannot read minds. Yahweh can read all minds at once. The Easter Bunny uses a brain to think. Yahweh has no brain and thinks. The more reasonable being is clearly the Easter Bunny. Occam's Razor tells us which is more rational to believe in, the Easter Bunny. In conclusion, I think the jury is in. I've presented clear well reasoned argument in support of the proposition, "It is more rational to believe in the Easter Bunny then the god of the Jews/Christians/Muslims." Cons first response has fallen significantly short of refuting my claim. Often slipping into off topic arguments or even claims that weren't made. If Con wishes to gain ground, and possibly present a superior argument, he must establish that Yahweh's claimed traits make him more probable then the Easter Bunny. The traits must be addressed by Con directly. I've made their respective claimed traits the backbone of my position, they must be addressed. I would like to thank my opponent for his participation. I would like to thank those who've read these arguments as well. I would also like to encourage those who've read these argument to vote for the stronger of the two positions. Vote to support the Easter Bunny. Thank you.