Kleptin Brand "Pick Your Own Debate"!

The issue of debate is whether "The belief in God" is rational. For the purposes of this debate, I shall define "rational" as "the product of correct reasoning" and "God" as the Judeo-Christian God (Since there was no article and the word is capitalized). The overarching theme of my response to my opponent's four contentions is simple. Imagine if you will that you enter your house after a long night of rampant sex at your girlfriend's apartment, only to find that the windows have been bashed in and an empty spot where your expensive sound system used to be. You phone the police and when giving testimony, you describe the burglar as a 6'6" white male with a curly mustache, purple hair, a dragon tattoo on his chest and exactly 12 toes on each foot. While it is one thing to use examples to prove that a greater power exists, it is another thing to add extra attributes to that greater power. If my opponent is to win this debate, he must not only show that a greater power exists, but that it also, out of reason and logic, matches the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God in that it is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, benevolent, forgiving, etc. NOW, On to my opponent's contentions. CONTENTION ONE: The reasoning by my opponent is that since all things come from other things, it would lead to an infinite regress, which is illogical. My opponent then argues that something beyond our logic must be responsible for causing itself, as well as the rest of the universe. My first response is the concept of a self causing cause is just as illogical as the concept of an infinite regress. If my opponent's conclusion is that an illogical thing must be the cause of the universe, why not just choose the infinite regress? My second response is that the notion that everything must come from something is not right reasoning. We understand that things come from other things based on our day to day interactions. Thus, the premise that all things come from other things is not right reason, making the conclusion unreasonable. My third response is that even if all the above were true, the proof only lists that a powerful "thing" was responsible for the creation of the universe. This thing is substantially different from the Judeo-Christian "God" as stated in the topic. CONTENTION 2 Though Pascal's wager is quite convincing, I myself have a problem with it. You see, I worship the God Bareth'Napal, and the believers of Bareth'Napal get to go to the Christian Heaven as well as bring any loved ones with them. However, if I am not a believer, Bareth'Napal will send me AND my loved ones to the Christian Hell. Thus, I would much rather believe in MY God than the Judeo Christian God. In all seriousness though, there are hundreds and thousands of religious beliefs present today. Pascal's wager holds absolutely no power. To throw in another response, I'm not sure that God, being as omniscient and benevolent as he is, would be too keen on people falsely believing in him just for the after-death perks. CONTENTION 3 The wizard Merlin was feared by all for his ability to throw fireballs. Today, we have grenade launchers that essentially do the same thing. The amazing, beyond belief things of today are not quite so impressive tomorrow. The examples that my opponent produced, namely, the mystical magical numbers, are relevant to those fields of mathematics purely because mathematics is a perfect science, created by man. It is akin to looking at a 10,000 piece puzzle and being amazed that each piece seems to fit in perfectly with its neighbors. Of course it does. That's the nature of the puzzle. It is the same case with mathematics. Mathematics operates under perfect principles developed by man, so doubtlessly, perfection will arise from it. Contention 4 My first response: Nothing would make me happier than having rampant, unprotected sex with numerous, unbelievably attractive women day after day after day. And you don't need a scientific study to show that sex makes people happy. However, this is unreasonable to dedicate my life to. This argument is quite weak in that there are SO many ways in which one can find happiness, adopting a religion is only one out of millions. My second response: There are a number of different religious beliefs that entail the pursuit of happiness or an equivalent state that does not revolve around God, or even any god. Even if you were to conclusively show that Religion is a necessity for happiness, you cannot specify which and thus, cannot complete your proof. TO SUM UP My opponent has not offered any solid reason why it is rational to believe in God. I will now dedicate the rest of my argument to why I believe that the belief in God is irrational by giving my own rational conclusion as to why belief in the Judeo-Christian God is unreasonable. The concept of a God and the concept of afterlife developed from ignorance and fear. Much like how small children would create superheroes with their friends on the floor of their bedrooms to thwart bullies and give them toys, people also gave attributes to a being much like themselves. Humans feared death, so gave God the attribute of immortality. They gave God the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience because they crave power and knowledge. The story of God spread like the story of the boogieman. If you're bad, the boogieman will eat you. Similarly, if you're bad, God will turn you into a pillar of salt, strike you with lightning, give you boils, destroy your crops, and/or kill your firstborn children. Problem is, the boogieman only scared children. Over the course of the years, humans grew up too. Boogieman hasn't eaten me all these years and similarly, there have been no Godly acts over the past few thousand. Now it's time to change the story. To appeal to a wiser, more skeptical crowd, God is now benevolent and works behind the scenes rather than directly impacting human life. The more and more learned we become, the less of a place God has in our society. We can reasonable conclude that as this pattern continues, The Judeo-Christian God will have less and less human-like attributes and revert back first to the Deistic God, than to an Agnostic "force" to answer the cosmological argument, and at the end, ignore the existence of such a thing altogether. Thus, it is irrational to believe in God.