It is unreasonable to not believe in God.

Thanks, Con. Is skepticism rational? I apologize for not seeing that Con was only referring to “all positive claims”. However, he did also say, “This does not entail from skepticism, which assumes all claims are more likely false than true.” Any intellectually honest person will not reject other possibilities, but will come to the best conclusion based on what they can observe. If you saw a writing on a rock, you would come to the most reasonable conclusion that the writing had an intelligent human’s mind as its source. Why? According to Con, because: 1. We know humans exist. 2. We know the things humans generally create, such as letters and numbers. 3. We know the things that non-humans (including natural processes) generally don’t make. His first reason is already flawed, since it’s a positive claim. According to Con’s reasoning, it is more likely false than true that humans exist. He may argue that his first premise is not a claim, but a fact. But that’s an invalid argument since he is making another positive claim that is more likely false than truth. If you still can’t see what’s wrong with skepticism, that just shows how correctly your brain is really functioning. Necessary attributes of God In the previous round I did not argue that God is not the creator. I simply argued that “omni” attributes are not necessary attributes of God, nor are they in the Bible. I personally do not believe those words are accurate descriptive words of the Bible God, which is why I briefly mentioned absolute perfection. The Hebrew and Greek Bible words translated “perfect” often mean “complete,” “mature,” or “faultless” according to standards set by an authority. But God IS the authority, if he exists, so he would be the only being with absolute perfection. Any other perfection would be relative; it would have to do with God’s purpose for his creation. First Argument In the previous round, Con misunderstood my argument. That is why I clarified that rather than arguing life would not exist without design, I was arguing that if there is design, there is a designer. Second Argument Con claims no law-giver is required because scientific laws simply describe what we see. But what we see is there for a reason. We see a lawgiver gives laws. Why do you assume it is any different in nature? Let’s use a little bit of skepticism. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules. It is more likely false than true that such an orderly and complex universe that follows these laws that allow us to stay alive would be the result of a random explosion. Third Argument Con argued my third argument is invalid because “complex meaningful information” is undefined. But I clearly showed that is not the case in the previous round. I extend arguments. Fourth Argument (BEGINNING OF QUOTE) So which is the smart party, here? Is it the atheists, who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair, and their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench (or, if they are wrong, they go to Hell)? Or is it the believers, who live longer, happier, healthier, more generous lives, and who have more kids, and who go to their quietus with ritual dignity, expecting to be greeted by a smiling and benevolent God? Obviously, it’s the believers who are smarter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally ill. And I mean that literally: the evidence today implies that atheism is a form of mental illness. And this is because science is showing that the human mind is hard-wired for faith: we have, as a species, evolved to believe, which is one crucial reason why believers are happier – religious people have all their faculties intact, they are fully functioning humans. Therefore, being an atheist – lacking the vital faculty of faith – should be seen as an affliction, and a tragic deficiency: something akin to blindness. Which makes Richard Dawkins the intellectual equivalent of an amputee, furiously waving his stumps in the air, boasting that he has no hands. (END OF QUOTE) http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk... I personally do not believe in hell, but that link makes a very good point. Who is really smarter, the believer that lives a better healthier life and is expecting to benefit from the blessings God has to offer, or the atheist that lives a meaningless life now and, that if wrong, will not have the better eternal and truly happy life in the future that God offers? We have evolved, or in other words, we were created to believe in God. If your brain does not seek God, it is not functioning correctly. This is a scientific fact. Remember the sources I gave in round one? Here they are again: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00520.x/abstract (The Association of Suicide Rates with Individual-Level Suicide Attitudes: A Cross-National Analysis) iasp.info/pdf/papers/Bertolote.pdf (A global perspective in the epidemiology of suicide) pub.uni-bielefeld.de/publication/2050070 (Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates) link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10943-011-9541-1# (Psychological Distress Among Religious Nonbelievers: A Systematic Review)