Belief in religion and a creator are inductive arguments.

I have never said oxford dictionary is not a sufficient source. However the definition it provided simply did not have enough information for a person ignorant of its meaning to actually learn what the definition of the word is after reading the definition you provided. Let's not assume that dictionaries offer the best definitions. Sometimes other sources may offer more clear informative definitions like in this debate. My opponents claim of my definitions being paradoxical is absolutely ridiculous. My definition simply restated the subject and then correctly defined the term witch my opponents definitions failed to do. I introduced deductive reasoning because it is relevant to this debate. My opponent doesn't realise this apparently but he is on the con side of this resolution witch means he is arguing that belief in religion and a creator are deductive arguments. Con failed to define he terms he was arguing. So I find it to be comical that he was upset that I helped him out by defining the word his case is based on for him because he failed to do so. witch he failed to do.con stated, "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." First, if con had a problem with having the bop why are we debating right now? He accepted the terms. Also I just posted last round. I didn't just say no, no, and no and leave it at that. I explained why and went into additional points. So this suggestion that I'm not explaining my position is invalid. con further states, "The issue here is that religion isn't anything to do with analytical mentality, it is to do with idealistic mentality," I disagree with that statement. Both are involved. There are people in the world who blindly follow their faith, however there is still logic involved in why they believe in that particular faith and not others and why they are willing to defend that faith. Be the reason illogical or not that belief is still based on logic. Though a thought, action, or belief may not make any logical sense there still is a thought process involved. Especially when deciding if, " this religion is right for me or if its the truth." Every religious person at some point in their lives asks themselves that question. They cannot ignore the fact that their are millions of religions So one has to ask themselves witch one is the original. It is logic that makes the persons decision on the matter. Even when I was religious I defended it for reasons based on logic. However even then I realised those reasons were based on the principles of inductive argumentation.Con also states, "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. "I do agree that children relies on less logic than an adult. However a child is still able to think logically evident by children asking questions about the religion and the god their parents try to teach them about. For instance a child might ask, " who made this god?, Is this god bad or evil?, Does this god love me?, Does this god care about children?, Why does this god allow evil in the world? If these questions are not based on logical holes in their minds(questions) then why would they not just accept what the parents are saying and not wonder about things that don't seem to make logical sense? See even a child can see that religion is based on inductive argumentation. That child may not know it but it's evident by the sequence of questions and confusion some have when being taught religious beliefs. cons statement, "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. etc.....First of all there are only two ways a person can believe something. Either through deductive or inductive reasoning. There is no middle ground or any other method. Moving on, Con has made some very flawed statements. He is saying since religious people terrorize others and have violent outbursts because they were certain that they were right about their religion is evidence that religion and a belief in god is a guaranteed factual belief. This is so flawed. First of all the fact that people are fighting over witch religion is right is evidence that not all people who believe in religion is right about their believes. It means that millions of religions are wrong and that one of them is right if one is at all. Also let me provide a syllogism to prove how absurd this logic sounds.A. Since all of the thousands of religions believed they were right, That is guaranteed evidence that someone is right atleast.now using that same logic in another scenario.B. Since all idiots believe they are geniuses, that is guaranteed evidence that atleast one of them is right atleast.I think the problem with that logic is very obviously presented here. Just because a couple argues doesn't mean one or either of them are right for what there arguing about. The fact that religions fight over who's right is not evidence that belief in religion is based on guaranteed facts.( deductive logic) What my opponents point really proves is that there is no way for any religion to know if they are guaranteed to be right about their beliefs or if their being tricked. Therefore there is no possible way that religion is based on all facts and not an argument from probability.Con made another flawed statement, "Well, there is actually zero 'guaranteed' proof for any belief at all"This is obviously not true. If I make the statement that Barrack Obama is the current president of the United States, it proves to be factual because this is common knowledge I the US and I can check the truth of the matter by checking the records of presidents, Therefore I am guaranteed that the statement I made is based on deductive logic.Cons statement, "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"I'm glad you realize this is an inductive argument because what you stated is not guaranteed and I can prove you wrong therefore making it an inductive statement and a false generalization. First I'm an ex-Jehovah's witness. They would say their beliefs are based on logic and that their teachings are based on facts. They would say they can show viable proof that god exists but there main argument is the complexity of the earth. "It couldn't have come from nothing, someone had to create it." is what they would say. However that is an inductive argument. There is no guarantee that the earth wasn't created from nothing( Ex-Nihilio) and that an intelligent creator created earth. No one knows witch side is true therefore their argument is one from probability.( inductive argumentation) Or they would say yes, it is based on logic from god given by the bible. However even they can't prove that god spoke to the people that wrote the bible or that he even exists. They rely on a book that is not guaranteed to have come from god. Obviously this is not a proven to be factual belief but is an argument based on induction.So as we can see I have effectively proven my position to be true. While cons position to lack support to be firm. His contentions and points stand no more.Therefore a pro ballot is a logical response to this debate.