It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

"Suppose there are 10 things that P could be. If you believed any one of them, you would have a 90% chance of being wrong. Still, the proof would be valid for 100% of them and if you believed in none pf them you would have a higher chance of being wrong (100%). If the various possible P's are mutually exclusive, that means that either a premise is wrong or there is an antinomy. Neither possibility means that my argument is invalid"Wow did my opponent really just say this, he confuses 10 completely seperate beliefs as one, really, is he that ignorant. Yes I guess so. Since only one can be right by disbelieving all i will have 90% of my beliefs right. Where as by guessing one right i have a 90% chance of all my beliefs in this subject being wrong. Remember the point of being rational is to have the most true beliefs. I have the better chance by believing none.Lets do a chart: God don't believe chance of being right Believe chance of being rightAllah 90% 10%Yahweh 90% 10%Thor 90% 10%IPU 90% 10%I think we get the picture. You have to judge each belief on its individual chances of being true. You want to secure the most possible true beliefs.Now that i picked on him for being a complete moron, to further prove this argument invalid, while the morons cream themselves over poor arguments. Lets create a contradiction by using this logic he is defending. since the definition of validity is:An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion. It would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises.If the conclusion can lead to a contradiction it is not valid because then the conclusion does not logically follow. Can this argument lead a person to contradiction lets see. Imagine you replace IPU with Allah, allah for the idiots here is the muslim god, who is defined as the one true god and no other gods exist he is mutually exclusive. He cannot have a son, that is a very basic muslim belief, so no son Jesus, Jesus was merely a prophet, that is edumacating you morons as i would bet none of you knew that about islam.So we have proven that this argument demonstrates that it is rational to place faith in allah. So we have this:If allah exists no other gods existJesus/Yahweh/Holy spirit combo pack is another god.The person rationally has faith that allah exists.This through a basic rule of logic means that it is rational to believe Combo pack christian morons god does not exist.But wait the same ratinal person now using the Argument for Combo Pack god, so its now rational for this person to both believe combo pack god exists and does not exist. His faith is now contradictory, but for an argument to be valid this must necessarily be true if the premises are true. But it doesn't lead to this at all. So lets use his his own syllogism against him here:Everything is based on faithBelief that a argument is invalid is part of everythingconclusion: It is rational to believe their is no way his argument is invalid.Sorry had to do it, this argument is so retarded it can disprove itself. How can this argument now both be valid yet invalid? At the end of the day my opponent tried to play a retarded seantical battle, looking like an idiot. He agreed with the argument and voted for it, he implied that the argument was both sound and valid, but his vote makes him so uncomfortable he has to retardedly conflate the issue of the use of the word valid as a layman's term vs the philosophical or logical term. This is the type of intellectual dishonesty we see on this board. I made the rules, I was using it in layman's his entire attempt at semantics is a straw man of what the argument was about so it fails.Somebody want to bet that my opponent wouldn't agree with the idea of letting all non-violent mental patients out because their beliefs are part of everything, so they are only being rational. If you don't think its a good argument you don't vote for it. Thanks for reading please vote for him because you jackasses fall for logical fallacies to easily, so if you vote for me, I will be concerned that I am being illogical here.