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

My opponent is claiming it is valid, but lets look at what it means to be valid.In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is entailed by its premises, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.http://en.wikipedia.org...Now, lets seriously look at the argument Premise 1: All humans use faith to judge eveything. Now this is blantantly false as faith means belief without evidencefaith NOUN: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust. http://education.yahoo.com...Premise 2: God is part of everything.Coclusion: It is rational to believe in god because of faith because we use faith to judge everything.Now, first of all this doesn't address why it is rational,My opponent is claiming it is valid, but lets look at what it means to be valid.In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is entailed by its premises, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.http://en.wikipedia.org...Now, first of all this doesn't address why it is rational:rationalHaving or exercising the ability to reason. Of sound mind; sane. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers. A rational...Rational means logical and when something is a logical fallacy it is by definition not logical.So now with this said I am going to do a syllogism, I know, I know you guys have no clue what one is but you will see, Premise 1. To be rational is to be logical by definition. Premise 2. A logical fallacy is by definition not logical. Premise 3. KRFourniers argument used the logical fallacy of special pleading. Conclusion: KRFourniers argument is not rational.So, an argument has to be true for every form of the argument is true, so unless he wants to say that he believes in pinky the invisible pink unicorn because of my argument it is not valid. The argument is also not rational as it is special pleading, if you take this argument you have to say that anything anybody can think of is rationa to believe. So my opponent really needs to think is this really what he wants to argue. Does my opponent really think that if you insert bigfoot. fairies, vampires, elfs, and martians they are rational to believe in. When you see that this argument can "prove" anything rational you see it is not a good argument nor valid. It is clear that the argument does not do what it claims you need more to get to rational. Its pretty obvious that to believe something rationally, that belief should actually most likely be true so lets take a look here. This argument will prove many mutually exclusive( hand holding time again, mutually exclusive means if one is right none of the others can be) ideas "rational" such as: Jesus, Allah, Yahweh(jewish),ipu(as only god), flying spaghetti monster(as only god), thor(as only god), trickster(as the one true god), Mythra(as the only god), Hercules(as the only god), Zues(as the only god). Since this argument does not establish any distinction in probabilty. It leaves each one as a equally valid position. Being such each one has an even chance of being right. Taking the assumption that this is the full dichotomy( it is not,but merely used for illustration(can't believe i felt the need to walk people through that but the readers here aren't too bright)) Each one has a 10% chance of being right. Understanding that the opposite of right is wrong. That means(still can't believe i have to hold your hands through this one) that they have a 90% chance of being wrong. So to choose any option as one you think is right is irrational because it is clear that based on this argument alone you will be wrong 9 out of 10 times. Now, I know what you are thinking, but wait there is evidence for god. Well guess what that means the argument fails as faith alone is all one should need and faith again is belief without evidence. By the way nice try at semantics grape. It still fails.