It is more rational to believe the Easter Bunny exists than the god of the Jews/Christians/Muslims

Thanks, Pro. I will begin by addressing my opponent's points before moving on to present arguments of my own.1. Rebuttal I would like to ask those involved to try and put aside your cultural biases" "I would like to make a distinction between two types of traits..."I'll accept this distinction for now, although it seems to me that the distinction between "possible traits" and "questionable possible traits" can only be made with regard to human beings (perhaps animals as well) because we are in no position to distinguish between these traits with regard to beings like Yahweh or the Easter bunny. In the case of these beings, we can't be so sure of what a "natural" trait is in the same way that we can identify blonde hair to be a natural trait in human beings."PT are stronger than QPT since we can be certain that they are an option. QPTs are weaker traits because they haven't been determined to be available."I disagree. If we are more sure that trait A exists as opposed to trait B, this does not make trait A "stronger" and trait B "weaker". It at best shows that trait A is more likely to exist. For example, let trait A represent 20 lbs of muscle and let trait B represent 500 lbs of muscle. Clearly, it is more likely that trait A would exist. However, we can see just as clearly that trait B is the stronger trait, if it exists. It does not follow that because a certain trait is less likely to occur, therefore that trait is weaker."I will argue that the Easter Bunny has fewer QPTs than Yahweh, therefore belief in the Easter Bunny is more rational."Aside from the fact that claiming knowledge of Yahweh's traits as either questionable or not is clearly not within human capacity, I just showed that even if more QPTs did exist, it would present no issue. Furthermore, there are billions of "QPTs" for both Yahweh and the Easter bunny. Even if my opponent managed to spell out every single questionably possible trait for both beings, he/she would still have all of their work ahead of them in showing why this makes belief in the Easter bunny more rational than belief in Yahweh.My opponent goes on to list a few traits (PT and QPT) of both entities. Aside from the fact that he/she has failed to list each and every PT and QPT (of which there are doubtlessly billions in number), my opponent fails to recognize that by definition all of Yahweh's traits must be "QPTs". Nothing about Yahweh is natural, and as such there are no "natural traits" held by Him. I readily admit this, yet I see no reason to believe that this fact somehow makes belief in God less rational than belief in the Easter bunny. On my opponent's view, it seems that he/she must have a difficult time believing in just about anything aside from the existence of human beings, as the only "natural" (to my opponent) traits are the ones held by others like him/herself. This line of reasoning is blatantly fallacious. 2. ArgumentsIn order for my opponent to show that the Easter bunny is more rational than God, he/she must refute these arguments and in their place put forward comparable arguments in favor of the Easter bunny's existence.i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.ii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality. P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.Defense of P1: In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.Defense of P2-P6: I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.3. SummaryMy opponent's entire argument hinges on the idea that in order to hold rational belief in something, that "something" must meet the requirement of a certain number of "natural" characteristics. Clearly, as God is by definition supernatural, He does not have a single "natural" characteristic. But how does it follow from God's having only supernatural characteristics that He therefore is irrational? This is something my opponent must explain in the next round, as this assertion is most certainly unwarranted. In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute both of my arguments in addition to providing justification for his/her wild assertion that God's being supernatural somehow leads to belief in His existence being irrational. Until he/she is able to do these things, my opponent has failed to carry the burden of proof and has lost the debate.Sourceshttp://now.tufts.edu...