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

My goal was not to show that something unscientific is definitively wrong, and I actually do not believe that it is the case. Furthermore, the statement that the belief in Heaven is unscientific was supported by evidence, which my opponent seemed to agree with (or perhaps chose to ignore). *** (I hope my opponent does not mind me using the three stars like he does) My opponent started his previous argument by quoting the definition of reason that I gave (though he only quoted part of it), a definition by which I firmly stand. He then goes on to say that he showed how my argument was fallacious in a supposedly clear and indisputable way, which, as I pointed out in the previous round, is obviously not the case, since he only objected to the definition of reason. But obviously, my opponent did not see it that way; he instead believes that I changed my definition of reason, and tries to demonstrate this by comparing the definition I gave in round 2 with something I said in round 3: "According to the International Journal of Philosophical Studies, reason is the process by which we make sense of things, mostly by using logic" "Reason is in fact the process by which we apply logic. " I honestly had to scratch my head a while in order to find what my opponent thought was even slightly (much less 'vastly') different between those two statements, since he decided to simply state that they were different without giving any evidence or explanation. I finally came to a conclusion (or rather with a hypothesis): my opponent probably takes issue with the fact that the first sentence states that we use reason to 'make sense of things' while the second one does not. If that is the case, then I must apologize to my opponent; I assumed that he knew what the purpose of logic was, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So, for the sake of clarity, I will write the long version of the second sentence: "Reason is in fact the process by which we apply logic TO MAKE SENSE OF THINGS. " I would like to point out that the objection he raised does not at all address Point 2 (the factual aspect), I will therefore consider this point conceded. I will not be addressing his claim that I straw maned his position, since my answer would basically be a copy of round 3. My opponent accuses me of having the 'audacity' to ask for an alternate definition of reason, which honestly surprised me; I thought he would be glad to do so, since he seems to disagree with mine. He then fails to comply my so-called audacious request (although he kind of does towards the end). He concludes this section by accusing me of violating the rules of round 1 by changing definitions (which, as I have demonstrated, I did not do) and by stating that he will not reply to my objections in his final round because he considers my arguments 'debunked', which is not only opposed to the spirit of debates but is also the ultimate cop out. *** In the second section, my opponent asks me 'What constitutes a reasonable belief? ', to which I answer that a reasonable belief is a belief that is based on logic and facts. I'm having trouble to believe that I did not already made that clear with : '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. ' My opponent then either completely misinterprets what I have said or flatly lies when he says: 'My opponent argues that the Christian Heaven cannot be reasonable because it is "impossible" and "absurd" ' which I NEVER said or even implied. What I DID say was that it is not reasonable to believe something that is impossible but I have NEVER linked it to Heaven and I DO NOT actually believe that Heaven is impossible. 'Impossible' is not the only category of things that can be believed in unreasonably. My opponent then says: 'Audience, please do not be fooled' which is a classical fallacy of poisoning the well, by which he tries to convince the audience that they are fools if they agree with me, but I trust the audience will not be. .. 'fooled' by such fallacy. 'By his own line of reasoning, since the belief of death is based on the fear of death, is not the belief of death is thereby reasonable? ' I'm not even sure what 'belief of death' means so I can not really say whether or not it is a reasonable belief, but I do know that this does not come from 'my own line of reasoning' and that it is irrelevant to the topic of this debate. 'Is it reasonable for humans to fear? Is it reasonable for humans to hope? ' That is, again, absolutely irrelevant to the topic of the debate, since hope and fear have nothing to do with BELIEF. 'Do we not use reason and act reasonably when information is missing or ambiguous? ' Yes we do, I do not get my opponent's point; we indeed use reason when information is missing or ambiguous, but I fail to see how that is in anyway linked to a reasonable belief. It is the 'duty' of the reasonable person is to NOT believe something (which is different from believing that something is false) when the information is missing or ambiguous. *** In the next paragraph, my opponent accuses me of failing to incorporate certain aspects of humanity in my definition of reason, which I consider to be the answer I was looking for, when I asked him to provide his definition of reason. For my opponent, emotions (such as fear) are PART of reason and therefore make the belief in Heaven reasonable according to his definition. I thank my opponent for providing me with his definition, but I must disagree with it. I will simply point to almost every philosopher (Plato, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, etc. ); although they may disagree on which is more important, all of them support the fact that reason and emotions are in direct opposition. My opponent may be tempted to call a fallacy of appeal to authority, but he would be wrong to do so since the authorities I've listed are relevant to the topic and I only use them as support for my claim, not absolute proof. *** It basically comes down to this: If you believe that emotions are part of reason and that facts and logic are only secondary, then I encourage you to vote for my opponent. But, if you agree with the definition I provided, which focuses on facts and logic and is consistent with the vast majority of philosophers and dictionaries, then your vote should go to me. When my opponent posts his closing, I would like you to read it carefully and evaluate whether or not what he says is actually relevant to the topic of the debate. Be wary when my opponent claims that he has 'conclusively' or 'clearly' destroyed my argument, for he is trying to add weight to what he says without adding any argument. Finally, keep in mind that 'belief' is different from 'reasonable belief', for my opponent often tries to prove that people actually believe in Heaven rather then trying to prove that the belief in Heaven is reasonable (as is demonstrated by his various appeals to hope and the reasons why we hope).