Believing in a religion is illogical

Thanks to my opponent for taking on this debate. I'd also like to ask my opponent to agree to limit the debate to 4 rounds, since this will get pretty long. I'd like to start by clarifying that I'm not discussing agnosticism, but rather that choosing one particular, specific religion is illogical. This assertion is supported by the fact that I said believing in (a) religion is illogical. And by belief i'm referring to your absolute acceptance of a religion. I will start by addressing my opponents claims, and then present my own arguments for why belief in a specific religion is illogical. Now lets take a look at your Apologetics argument: Your first argument claims that Apologetics is logical because two of your source said that "The logic-based defense of a religion or theory" is reasonable. Well which religious theory or defense are you talking about? In what way is it reasonable and from what context? It's begging the question to say that the "logic based defense of a religion or theory" is logical because it's reasonable, regardless of how many sources you have. In order to make this point at all relevant, you need to show how exactly your sources "proved" that for particular religions, which seems unlikely given that proof and religions don't mix well. Your final point about apologetics is also wrong, where you say that "Since apologetics assumes belief in religion, Believing in religion is not always illogical, although it can be." Your unproven assumption, is again, that the underlying logic for the defense is sound. If the underlying logic (valid prepositions, and assumptions) was correct for apologetics, then it would be reasonable as you have claimed. However, to make this kind of argument worthwhile at all, you need to give examples of effective religious apologetics, which prove that belief in a religion is reasonable or logical. As for your argument about inductive reasoning: You're absolutely correct to emphasize that inductive reasoning is often more risky. It often stands on argumentative fallacies such as hasty generalizations. Wikipedia has a page on the problem of induction namely that: [1] Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or [2]Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature. [1][2] http://en.wikipedia.org... Going back to your example about the person who prays for a miraculous discovery, this is a primary example of a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization, where you assume a religion is true because several instances seem to confirm your guess and is highlighted by [1]. They also assume [2] that praying will continue to affect their lives. Neither of these are logical nor reasonable because they completely ignore random chance. The exclusion of random chance means that the entire line of reasoning is illogical, because it does not consider every possible case. The best you can do is guess to a certain percentage that the religion is correct, but you have no way of being certain. Therefore, inductive reasoning to arrive at a certain religious conclusion is illogical without sufficient evidence. In addition, depending on your own anecdotal evidence as sufficient, is another example of a logical fallacy. If I was writing a computer program, I would not assume that the entire thing was 100% working because I tested three or four test cases, when there are trillions of different cases which could be implemented. Math also shows that non mathematical inductive reasoning is often very flawed; you don't assume that a proof is true because you proved that three or four cases were true. The reason why I say non mathematical is because mathematical induction is a perfectly logical construct, assuming that all the base cases are true, and that you can prove that p(n)-->p(n+1). Religious people have failed to prove all their base cases by excluding certain things such as random chance. Furthermore, they don't even have enough inductive information to pick a religion: how do they know it wasn't Thor, or Zeus, or Apollo, or even the flying spaghetti monster that saved them from their medical woes? The point is that they have no idea"no one truly does unless they were indoctrinated (which would be manipulative, not logical), which is another reason why believing in religion is highly illogical. I'd also like to bring up one of your quotes, where it says, "Whether or not he's right, he's being logical. (Another source, even though it's unneeded: [6]) ." I find that this line of reasoning to be a gross over simplification; if he's not doing something right, then he's not being logical. For example, if a mechanic repairs a car incorrectly, then his logic was flawed on some level. Being truly logical will never lead you to the wrong answer, which is why math works. If perfect logic could sometimes get you to a wrong answer, then logic, the basis for science, wouldn't be very useful in computer science, math, or physics. The only reliable way to believe in a religion is if there is mathematical proof and, or evidence"not simply a hasty generalization from a faulty use of induction based on anecdotal evidence. Now for my arguments: There are also several more hasty generalizations, which all religious individuals abide by. Of course not all religions are the same, but all religions make central claims about the universe, which are either unprovable currently, or just flat out wrong. For example, they make claims such as "there is meaning and purpose to life", or "there is some sort of afterlife", or "that the higher powers of the universe care about humans". Neither of these claims are provable, factual, or reasonable to believe in inductively, or logically, without proof. Does the fact that you were saved at hospital miraculously prove these claims even the slightest? No, it proves nothing and these are just more illogical assumptions. Lets talk more about probability: There are an infinite number of possible religions that could be true. You can imagine infinite possible religions by adding infinite layers of complexity to the religion. The total chance that a religion is correct, and thus logical is 1/(the number of religions). If you take the limit as the number of religions goes to infinity, the function goes to zero. Any person with a paper and pencil can find this out for themselves. Therefore, logically and mathematically, the chance of a religion being correct is 0%. Believing in something which has a 0% chance of being right is even more illogical. http://www.wolframalpha.com... can calculate the limit of the function 1/x U94; 0.