It is unreasonable to not believe in God.

Thanks Pro. Time to wrap up! Skepticism is rational Pro essentially concedes that God has a low prior probability of existing. I did acknowledge that this can be rendered irrelevant if Pro gives porivive reasons for believing God exists. I believe that Pro has not been successful in providing *any* positive reasons to accept God’s existence, ergo my prior probability applies, and hence voters should vote Con. Pro’s argument that this would entail that human beings would most likely not exist implicitly concedes my argument. It is indeed true we should reject the notion human beings exist unless we have positive reasons to believe they do exist. Indeed we do have those reasons. God is meaningless I presented Pro a dilemma on the standard by which something is perfect, and Pro clearly grabs the second horn: “ Perfection is what is complete according to the standards set by the ultimate authority, which is God. ” This concedes that God’s standard is internal, which in turn is: 1. Question begging 2. Gives no content claims to what ‘perfection’ is Based on this alone, voters should vote Con. Since Pro lacks a meaningful definition of God. Pro might as well be arguing for ‘Fod’ and we would be left with exactly the same problems. Ultimate perfection does not even entail that God is the creator of the universe, or has any causal agency. Moreover it doesn’t even entail that God is intelligent or conscious and aware. Therefore each and every one of Pro’s arguments for God necessarily fail before they even get out of the blocks. “I can simply say God is just the creator. ” No, you can’t. Because you need to demonstrate ‘absolute perfection’ actually includes a creator aspect. However this is impossible since Pro has set God as the standard for God. God begs the question. First Argument Pro drops my arguments here. Moreover Pro has yet to demonstrate God is even possible, which renders Pro’s argument moot (as demonstrated last round). Second Argument Pro ignores my anthropic principle argument, and fails to justify P1, that natural laws require a law-giver. He also ignores my argument from emergent laws from purely statistical phenomenoa (entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Ergo, he concedes this argument. Pro appeals to the Bible, but I have no idea how this is relevant to God since the God of the Bible is different to how Pro defined God in this debate. The concepts are different. Third Argument Pro fails to come up with an objective determination of ‘meaningful’, which Pro’s argument mandates. Pro ignores that random polymers would also be classified as ‘complex meaningful information’ by the ‘definition’ he has given which itself doesn’t require any intelligence to form. Pro asserts that DNA contains ‘sentences’, but gives no reason to believe this, nor does he demonstrate that this means that DNA objectively has ‘meaning’. The only language within DNA is one we apply subjectively to it. Fourth Argument Pro’s entire argument rests upon the assumption: “We "evolved", or were created, to believe in God” Which is a rather exceptional claims, which has not been supported in any way. Pro has not demonstrates that increased depression etc. is a result of an incorrectly functioning brain (assuming that atheists actually do experience higher levels of these), and Pro ignores my naturalistic explanations for these. Hence, Pro drops his forth and final argument. Conclusion Pro fails to affirm any one of his arguments, and God remains a meaningless concept to boot.