A Logical Person Would Believe In God

Unfortunately, my opponent has misconstrued nearly all of my arguments and has failed to sufficiently defend his own. I will now proceed to point out his major mistakes. Many of Pro's attacks on my case concern how "this debate isn't about the problem of evil, it's about Pascal's Wager", as stated several times by my opponent. He misses the point. As conceded by my opponent, Pascal's Wager does not attempt to prove or disprove God's existence. However, numerous logical proofs, including the problem of evil, stand in opposition to God's existence. Because the Wager does not logically prove God's existence, nothing stands in the way of the problem of evil logically disproving god's existence, and thus, because a logical person acts according to logic, the said logical person would therefore not believe in god's existence. Consider the following scenario. Let's say that I choose to live in the 1400s and believe that I will fall off the edge of the earth and plummet to my death if I sail too far offshore. Using the same principles as Pascal's wager, I should refrain from boating because there is a "0.000001% chance" of me falling to my death. This, however, is ridiculous, as it is scientifically proven that the earth is not flat. Likewise, if the existence of God can be logically proven false, Pascal's wager is rendered useless. Pro further misconstrued my attack on the limited options available through Pascal's wager, so I will pose several questions which I would ask him to answer: How does the gambler benefit in Pascal's wager if: -God is malevolent? -God bases judgment upon good works instead of faith? -God, being omniscient, knows that the gambler's belief is dishonestly founded? -God bases judgment upon the search towards truth about the world? My opponent's answers to these questions will likely be inadequate because they each present one of the numerous situations in which the Wager fails. My opponent tries to defend Pascal's reasoning by saying that he "wants his argument, in principle, to appeal to as many people as possible", which is quite irrelevant because logic is not contiguous with popular appeal. However; his argument in favor of self-interest is opposed my many religions. Many belief systems stem on self-denial, and many more belief systems stress true devotion to their respective deities. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that true believers should live their life in constant prayer and with respect to the God in the world and people around them; many religions have requirements similar to this, and such beliefs are not likely to be stimulated by Pascal's "Meh, give it a shot" attitude. Pro further states, "Pascal was a shrewd psychologist. He understood human behavior." -------- I am sorry my friend, but logic and psychology are not the same thing. The Wager states that it is best to fake a belief in God, not that it is best to "believe in God and subtly have your psychology convert you to true belief". This is logic, not psychoanalysis. "My opponent's final claim is that religion is responsible for so much ill in this world, its consequences are not worth the belief." ------ Once again, Pro has completely missed the point. This was not a contention but a response to your shrugging off religious beliefs as a triviality in the first round; the gamble Pascal suggests we take is a choice of enormous, world-changing significance, and if Pascal's flip of the coin is wrong, all those who have died in the Crusades and on 9/11 have died to no real purpose. As for the reductio-ad-hitlerum remarks in the final paragraph, I would first remind you that evolution is not an atheistic belief but a scientific belief, and would further mention that atheism and moral nihilism do not go hand in hand; most atheists still live by a moral code, that code just doesn't come from thousand-year-old books. On this note the discussion is once again passed to my opponent.