It is unreasonable to not believe in God.

Thank you, Con. Is skepticism rational? We need water to live. But drinking excessively results in water intoxication. Why do I mention this? Skepticism, according to RationalWiki, is, "the art of constantly questioning and doubting claims and assertions". There is nothing wrong with a little questioning. But when you do it constantly, it becomes ridiculously irrational to the point that a true skeptic will doubt of his own existence, since he also questions that there is even such thing as valid evidence. Con's assumption that, "all claims are more likely false than true" is false. The absurdity of the assumption becomes evident when you make contradictory claims. Let's consider the claims, "God exists" and "God does not exist". Either God exists or he doesn't. Both claims cannot be true. If it is more likely that God exists, it is less likely that he doesn't exist. But, if it is more likely that God does not exist, it is less likely that he does exist. According to Con's assumption, it is more likely false that God exists and, at the same time, it is more likely false that he doesn't exist. Those who seek for the truth will not find it through skepticism, which questions if there is even such thing as truth. Any intellectually honest person will not reject the possibilities, but will come to the best conclusion based on what they can observe. Is God the best conclusion? To answer that, we must first understand what God is. Necessary attributes of God God could not be limited by time or space, characteristics of our physical universe. In other words, he is spiritual rather than material, had no beginning, and will have no end. Which God is the true God? That question is irrelevant to this debate. However, if the true God was the Christian God, the Bible does not even mention those “omni” adjectives, and they are not appropriate descriptive words for God since part of his absolute perfection is the perfect balance of his qualities. Counter Arguments P1) If it is reasonable to believe in God it is unreasonable to not believe in God. P2) It is reasonable to believe in God. C) It is unreasonable to not believe in God. My first argument: P1) If the Earth is intelligently designed, it had an intelligent designer. P2) That intelligent designer is God. P3) The Earth is intelligently designed. C) It is reasonable to believe in God. Unintelligent random chance simply does not result in intelligent design. The probabilities of an Earth that is at the precise distance from the sun at all times, although it is revolving at a speed of 67,000 mph, being the result of unintelligent random chance are already infinitesimal. That it would result in an Earth constantly rotating on its axis for billions of years allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day is virtually impossible. My second argument: P1) If universe follows laws, it must have a law giver. P2) That law giver is God. P3) The universe follows laws that allow us to stay alive. C1) It is reasonable to believe in God. If the universe did not have a creator, it was the result of random chance. How exactly this unintelligent random chance could have resulted in our universe is irrelevant. What happens at the Quantum level is irrelevant as well since it is that “randomness” which results in order at a larger scale. Understand that order is the availability of thermal energy that is transformed into mechanical works and that the reason we can’t fully understand QM is because it results from a different kind of matter, dark matter. A kind of matter we can’t see, yet scientists know it must be there to account for the gravity that holds galaxies together. If the only matter in the universe was matter we could directly detect, the galaxies we observe would not have had enough matter to have ever been formed and would fly apart because they wouldn't have enough matter to create a strong enough gravitational force to hold themselves together. While that gravity is keeping the galaxies together, there is also an anti-gravity force that scientists call, dark energy. They know it must be there because not only is the universe expanding, but this expansion is also accelerating. It is extraordinary how these gravity and anti-gravity forces work together to preserve the universe and the life in it. Could dark matter and dark energy be two states of the same dark "thing"? Perhaps that matter we do not see is God's active power in action, the holy spirit that the Bible describes in the first chapter of Genesis. The Bible talks many times about the expansion of the Earth. My third argument: P1) Complex meaningful information is the result of an intelligent mind. P2) The DNA is a meaningful and complex language that allows us to stay alive. Far more meaningful and complex than any human writing. P3) DNA is the result of an intelligent mind. P4) That intelligent mind is God. C) It is reasonable to believe in God. A writing on a rock would be considered “complex meaningful information” if it is complex (has more than one letter), and meaningful (the order the letters are in has meaning). The DNA language consists of four letter words (complex) that result in the proteins we need for life (meaningful). My fourth argument: P1) If God exists, he created the brain. P2) If anyone who’s brains functions properly wants to learn about God and worship him, then God must be constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him. P3) Those who’s brains function properly seek for God. C) It is reasonable to believe in God. Conclusion P1) If it is reasonable to believe in God it is unreasonable to not believe in God. P2) It is reasonable to believe in God. C) It is unreasonable to not believe in God. Thank you, Con. I eagerly await your response.