Believing in a religion is illogical

I will agree to limit the debate to four rounds, with the condition that round 5 can be used to say "Vote Pro/Con" and give some guidance to voters. I'd like to ask a few Cross-Examination questions, or basically questions for my opponent to answer. CX1. Do you agree that Sherlock Holmes, as depicted in the books, is behaving logically?2. Let's say a man owns a lawn mower. You could reasonably infer that he owns a property to mow. Furthermore he probably owns a house on that property. This is thinking logically, is it not?3. Is it possible to believe in something even if you might doubt it slightly?4. Do you believe the theory of evolution is logical?5. Must something be probable to be logical?6. Must you examine every possible outcome of a decision in order to logically make it?7. Inductive reasoning is a form of logical, is it not? Before I begin, I'd like to define Belief. My opponent seems to think that believing in a religion is 100% acceptance. "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence" [1] I would argue that belief is not necesarrily complete acceptance, but rather accepting that option as the most likely. For example, if you are taking a test and you are asked what the square root of 492 is, you might believe the answer is around 24. You don't 100% accept that, but you do accept it as the most likely. You would be wrong however, since the answer is an irrational number closer to 22. One more thing before jumping into the arguments. My opponent and I seem to disagree on a major issue: Whether or not you can be logical without being correct. I will present a few reasons why you CAN be wrong and still logical.1) Inductive reasoning. It is by nature imperfect and risky, yet my opponent agrees it is a form of logic. By agreeing that inductive reasoning is logic, my opponent inadvertently also agrees that you can make mistakes and still be logical.2) Evidence. According to [2], one can be wrong but still logical. Let me quote:"Within logical reasoning it can sometimes happen that the premises and conclusion seem obviously wrong, but are logically speaking correct when applying one of the logical reasoning types mentioned above. Be aware that conclusions are drawn based on logical reasoning and not on the validity of the context of certain premises or conclusions. "Now with that in mind let's jump into the arguments. I will quote parts of my opponent's statements by using >>>1. Apologetics. >>> "In what was it is reasonable and from what context? "It seems there are several questions here that don't fit well together or are written in a confusing manner. I will address the theme of this paragraph by saying a few things. First, I need not defend a particular religion, since the resolution does not deal with a particular religion. Second, the reason Apologetics is logical, from this first part of the argument, is because of the way my two definitions work together. Logic is defined as many things, including sound reasoning. I also proved that Apologetics is reasoning. I didn't say reasonable,I said reasoning. The point is not whether certain apologetical arguments are correct, the point is that the very activity of apologetics is a process of logical reasoning. Although I don't think this debate is one where we need to present apologetic arguments, I will satisfy my opponent's plea for an argument just for an example. I am not saying this argument necessarily proves a certain religion, but it's persuasive enough for some people to logically conclude it's true and believe. Things exist. It is possible for those things to not exist. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. The uncaused cause must be God. As you can see, whether you agree with this argument or not, it is based on logical reasoning. As is all of Apologetics. But remember the point is not if the argument is correct, the point is the fact that Apologetics is logical and leads to belief in religion. 2. Inductive Reasoning We both agree inductive reasoning and can risky. However, my opponent somehow thinks that makes inductive reasoning less "logical". These two examples are irrelevant because they don't disprove the validity of inductive reasoning, they just prove it can be wrong. Which is fine. It all goes back to my original point in the beginning that logical reasoning can be incorrect. (Also note my opponent is citing wikipedia, which is allowed but more dubious of a source). >>> "Going back to your example about the person who prays for a miraculous discovery, this is a primary example of a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization"Let's go back to my definition of belief. "conviction of the truth of some statement. .. especially when based on examination of evidence". The man in this example is simply basing his belief on the evidence of his own personal experience. He might be wrong, but it's still logical thinking. >>> "The exclusion of random chance means that the entire line of reasoning is illogical, because it does not consider every possible case. "Evolution is still a theory, so the same applies. Plus my definition of belief shows that it's based on examination of evidence, it doesn't say ALL evidence. It's impossible to be logical under my opponent's view, since he asserts you must consider every possible case. >>> "Religious people have failed to prove all their base cases by excluding certain things such as random chance. "Once again you don't have to cover all of your bases or be 100% correct. No one does. Inductive reasoning is logical, and thus belief in a religion is logical. >>> "Furthermore, they don't even have enough inductive information to pick a religion"There is historical evidence of certain religions, such as Christianity. This debate isn't about bringing up that evidence, but people do have reason to pick a certain religion logically and evidentially. >>> " if he's not doing something right, then he's not being logical. "I've already read a quote to the contrary. Now to my opponent's arguments.1. PresupposingIn order to believe something, you need to presuppose other things. Religious people use the apologetic argument I mentioned above to prove that God created the world. But no matter what you are arguing, you're presupposing something. 2. ProbabilityWell, the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is 1060 so evolution is far from probable either. [3] Aside from that however, my opponent is ignoring that there is evidence and apologetics to support certain religions, making them more probable. Lastly, probability has nothing to do with the discussion of logic, as discussed throughout this round. I'd like to present one more argument for my side:3. Definition of beliefBased on the definition I provided, the very act of believing is based on evidence. Inductive reasoning based on evidence is logical. Thus the resolution must be false. In short, in order for my opponent to be able to make a convincing argument, he'd have to 1) provide more sources for his claims and 2) provide a convincing argument for why logic must be correct to be logical. Sources[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.fibonicci.com...[3] . http://www.icr.org...