Belief in a God is rationally justified.

Ad Hominem is to say you are wrong because you are stupid. Argument from ignorance is to say that X is false because I do not understand X or because I do not have sufficient evidence to prove X. Your arguments are mostly argument from ignorance, and that you accuse me of ad hominem for pointing this out is a straw man. You are completely misrepresenting my rebuttals and claiming I committed ad hominem when I very obviously did not. This makes you dishonest and borderline commiting ad hominem yourself by suggesting that my arguments should be ignored because you think I am mean. This is not ad hominem either. Your arguments fail because they are fallacious, that I think you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant of the fallacies you commit is not why you are wrong. You are wrong because every single argument you made is fallacious. These are commonly termed "God of the gaps" arguments. You look for something you think is unexplained and then say that since it is unexplained, therefore God. You take it a step further by ignoring actual evidence of how these things are able to be explained because it is devastating to your arguments and have yet to offer a decent rebuttal. I am not sure there is value in once again pointing out how your arguments are fallacious. You keep repeating the same themes. You do not understand how a thing could come about so it is false and you think I am saying this is a bad argument because I dislike you. If anyone is to lose points for making dishonest and fallacious arguments, it would be you, not me. 1) There is not massive evidence for your god. Your evidence for your god is that "the first" is untrue. Your logic is circular. 2) If you cannot understand how a mental state that includes empathy and caring for one's fellow species would both lead to kin selection and to helping those who do not actually provide you a benefit, you should try thinking about it more. Empathy and caring lead to helping those you care about whether they are those who provide you an economic benefit or not. In general this will be advantageous because of many things. It motivates us to work together for each other's good. It also motivates us to not rob, rape, and murder each other. Since it is imperfect, some people still do rob, rape, and murder, but it is not the norm. Since it is not perfectly rational in a cold mechanistic way, some people are motivated by these emotions to help those who cannot help them back. 3) Deleterious mutations do not tend to get passed on, beneficial ones do. This is because creatures with these benefits will outcompete those without the benefit and those with a deleterious mutation will be in an even worse situation. Your probabalistic argument is completely backward. It is unlikely for mutations that help to be lost because offspring lacking them will not outcompete the offspring retaining them. 4) You saying that the creator cannot be measured does not mean that is true. You need to demonstrate that only an unmeasurable creator could create the world, and since the pixies are sufficient to the task, I would be very surprised if you could do this. 5) You are confused with the meaning of words and how they are used in the English language. To say that a thing does not make sense is saying that it is not something that is understood or explained. It is not saying that it is impossible. There could be many things that could not be understood while still existing. I was however being a bit loose with my language. I should have said it doesn't make sense to me which would mean I do not understand it. To rationally state that a thing is possible, you must have evidence that it is possible. It is not enough to simply lack evidence that it is impossible. If you have no evidence for the possibility or impossibility of a thing, then the rational stance it to hold no beliefs about it. Ie you do not believe it is possible and you do not believe it is impossible. Argument from incredulity would be if I had said that because it does not make sense to me it could not be true. I never said that and it is dishonest of you to imply that. As to the fourth dimension, It seems fairly well defined by mathematicians and physicists and is used to drive further research and study. If it were incomprehensible and not testable or used to further research, then it would only be reasonable to neither believe it exists nor believe that it does not exist. You need proof that a thing cannot exist to conclude that it can't exist. Lack of proof of its existence is not proof of its nonexistence. Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof, all of his arguments have been rebutted very clearly and fully. Pro has not demonstrated that belief in a god is rationally justified, so the reasonable position is to say that it is not rationally justified. This is not to say that it could never be rationally justified, just that it is not currently rationally justified. Much like it was not rationally justified to believe in evolution until we had evidence for the process, it is not rationally justified to believe in a god because there is no useful evidence for its existence.