The attempt to justify the presence of a metaphysical reality/God through rational means is futile.

I'm disappointed to see that Cheekychow has forfeited their round and potentially dropped out of the debate. As their profile shows that they've logged on since I posted my rebuttal I assume they've seen it and would therefore encourage them to at least explain why they don't want to continue (although I guess there's a certain irony about debating with somebody who believes that rationalism and "reasoned debate" are harmful! ) In my opening post I argued the following: 1. Cheekyhow overstates the link between the Enlightenment and attempts to justify God's existence through rational means. I would like to stress that I'm not suggesting tradition makes something true or valid, Simply that Cheekyhow's argument is based upon a simplistic reading of history. 2. Cheekyhow is mistaken if they think avoiding rational dialogue will reverse the decline of religion. If anything, It will further the popular belief that atheism has already won the debate. 3. Cheekyhow's opening post makes a lot of assumptions - the rise of atheism is a far more complex sociological question than they give credit. Until now I have focused on responding to Cheekyhow, Glossing over any assumptions that we appear to share. An atheist reading this may object to the way they are characterised or question whether the decline of religion is a necessarily a bad thing. As Cheekyhow has forfeited the chance to respond to my opening post, I will now present some arguments aimed at a broader audience. Reason, Logic and evidence are our best way of exploring the world around us; the computer/phone you are using to read this on wouldn't exist without logic, Modern medicine wouldn't be available without science and the great cathedrals of Europe would not stand if those living before the Enlightenment had no understanding of mathematics. Rationalism works. That doesn't mean that rationalism is all-knowing, Rather that we should explore the universe around us to the best of our ability - a good critical thinker knows when there is a gap in their knowledge or a topic requires further research. Either you maintain that God has no connection to the observable universe (in which case, Why call them God? ) or there is some overlap that can be explored. That doesn't mean that theists must purely define God as being a first-cause or creator, However so long as that's part of their definition then those parts corresponding to the observable universe can be explored through reasoned debate. Equally, Either God is illogical (which then turns God into a vague notion that can mean whatever you want it to mean) or logic can be used to gain a deeper understanding. For God to exist in any meaningful sense, They must correspond in some way to reality. I'll finish by exploring the suggestion that reasoned debate is a waste of time. Some people may dismiss debate. Org as being full of opinionated people talking past each other. I quick look through this site will show that not to be the case (at least, Not always! ) Even if nobody changes their minds on a topic as entrenched as religion a lot of people participate because they enjoy discussion and I maintain that debating is no more harmful than any other hobby. From my own personal experience reading books on the philosophy of religion and participating in discussions has refined, Strengthen and deepened my faith. These same arguments can also be applied to other metaphysical topics such as time. Without any good reasons to show that critical thought is harmful, Why shouldn't the theist be free to explore their faith, Or the atheist question their atheism, Using the brain that God is alleged to have given them?