The belief in (Christian) Heaven is both unscientific and unreasonable

I would like to start by saying that I agree with my opponent's definition of the terms Christian, Scientific and Reasonable and thus I will argue in accordance with them. I will also agree that it would be preferable to keep this discussion solely focused on the actual arguments rather than on the other person's moral or other otherwise unrelated characteristics and I will therefore do my best to argue in that fashion. I would like to add that this debate is not about the morality of a belief in Heaven, nor about the potential comfort that it can bring people, nor on the value of faith. Given my opponent's definition of science, we can safely assert that an unscientific conclusion (which most likely results in an unscientific belief) is the result of a process that is not based on the scientific method (or, in my opponent's words, on scientific procedures). In a similar manner, we can conclude that an unreasonable belief is a belief that is held despite being opposed to reason. Now, the position that I am advocating is that the belief in a Christian Heaven is both unscientific and unreasonable. I will begin with the scientific part. The scientific method, as it is most widely used, is relatively simple: 1- You start by observing a phenomenon 2- You formulate a hypothesis to try to explain this phenomenon 3- You then test your hypothesis to see if it is valid. Validating an hypothesis is mainly done through repeated attempts at disproving it; the more attempts it survives, the better accepted it becomes. 4- If your hypothesis fails to be validated, it must be modified to conform to the facts. A well accepted hypothesis eventually graduates to become a theory, which is the highest it can get in terms of reliability. To be accepted, a theory must be able to produce accurate predictions (the nature of which will change depending on the field of inquiry) and it must also be falsifiable in order to be scientific. Contrary to popular belief, the only thing that science considers to be fact is the observed phenomenon, not the theory itself. (I will continue my argument assuming that my opponent accepts this definition of the scientific method. Should it not be case, I would like him to present his own definition and will then proceed to assess it.) Based on this definition, the belief in a Christian Heaven is unscientific from the start because it is not based on observable facts, but rather on the fear of death and on the desire for eternal life. It does not try to explain anything nor does it try to produce any sort of predictions. There are no evidence to support the fact that such a place exists and no evidence to support the fact that our mind (you may call it a soul or a spirit if you want) can live beyond our brain. As far as we can tell, minds are only a product of electrochemical reactions that happen in our brain. I would like to clarify the phrase 'As far as we can tell', because my opponent may jump on it and accuse me of using an argument from ignorance. The reason why I used this particular phrasing is because I wanted to distinguish a scientific assessment from an absolute truth, which can only be found in mathematics. Science does not deal in absolute truths, it only deals with what can be observed in reality; our observations could be wrong, but as long as we do not have evidence that it is, with must be pragmatic and take them for what they are (I do hope that I will not have to address the problem of hard solipsism). The belief in Heaven is also unscientific on the basis that it can not be falsified. As it was discussed in the comment section, Heaven, if such a place exists, would theoretically be outside of the natural world and therefore can not be assessed by science and so can not be falsified as a hypothesis. This is important because my opponent may try to argue that the belief in Heaven is 'ascientific' rather than unscientific, meaning that it is outside of the domain of science and therefore can not be properly analyzed by it. To this I would answer that being outside of the natural world is precisely what makes it unscientific, since that makes it impossible for us to observe it. I would even go further and add that there is no such thing as an 'ascientific' belief and that beliefs are all either scientific or unscientific since they all either conform to the scientific method or they don't. I will now argue why I believe that the belief in a Christian Heaven is unreasonable. As I mentioned earlier, an unreasonable belief is one that is held against reason. According to the International Journal of Philosophical Studies, reason is the process by which we make sense of things, mostly by using logic, and is used to establish and verify facts. Therefore, for a belief to be unreasonable, it would need to go against logic and facts. This part of my argument will be significantly shorter: A belief in a Christian Heaven is unreasonable precisely BECAUSE it is unscientific. Now, one could argue that science is not necessarily the most reasonable way to evaluate reality, but I would postulate that it is indeed the most (and perhaps only) reasonable way to evaluate reality, since it is based on facts and that we can not judge reality based on anything other than observable facts. I will concede that the belief in Heaven is not downright illogical in the sense that it does not actually go against the three laws of logic, but I would point out that believing something without any evidence and only because it hasn't been PROVED false is a very bad way to gather knowledge, since you will undoubtedly believe things that are false and may even end up believing things that are contradictory (which IS illogical). I am now eager to hear (read) my opponent's arguments. This will be especially interesting because, judging by his profile, my opponent seems to be an agnostic, meaning that he probably won't argue that Heaven is a scientifically proved concept. But then again his profile also says that he is 104 years old, so who knows! (This is purely comedy, I obviously do not mean to say that my opponent is a liar.)