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

Thank you. Audience, I regret to inform you that this debate has not proceeded in an optimal fashion. Regretfully, we have degenerated into a semantic argument and my opponent has made this debate very difficult to finish in a proper manner by deliberately changing definitions in the last round before conclusions. My opponent has, in his second round, provided a definition for "reason": "According to the International Journal of Philosophical Studies, reason is the process by which we make sense of things, mostly by using logic" This is the definition he has used to construct his entire response, as well as two logical arguments that he bases his entire response on. In my response, I dismantle his argument by showing how they are *clearly* and *indisputably* fallacious. Instead of contesting or defending his arguments, he simply redefines the definition of "reason" that he provided "Reason is in fact the process by which we apply logic." This is *VASTLY* different from the definition that he provided. He then accuses me of giving him an absurd task: " he is basically asking me to prove that the definition of reason is correct, which is nonsensical; definitions are necessarily correct" Which is a straw man fallacy, a deliberate misinterpretation of my argument in order to claim that my rebuttal is irrational. I am not forcing him to prove that his definition of reason is correct, I have conclusively proven that the ARGUMENT he gave, based on the definition HE CHOSE for the word "reason" makes absolutely no sense. He then has the audacity to state the following: "UNLESS he can provide me with an alternate definition that is equally accepted, in which case I will try to argue in accordance with it." This is absolutely ridiculous. My opponent cannot make 2 arguments based on a definition he chooses, then change the definition when he gets proven wrong, accuse me of giving him an impossible task, then tell me to provide a new definition for the very word he already defined. This is the second time that my opponent has violated the rules of Round 1 since he is now changing the definition that I allowed him to provide simply to take the easy way out of defending his arguments. As such, I will not be responding to my opponent's responses to this section since I consider the arguments he provided thoroughly debunked based on the first definition he provided. *** I want to remind my opponent and the audience before I respond to his final argument that based on an established rule in the comments, Round 4 will *only* be for conclusions and the restatement of previous arguments, and as such, no new arguments or rebuttals should therefore be made. Counterpoints: My opponent tries to answer my question "How then can my opponent claim that the belief in a Christian heaven is unreasonable? On what basis and on what grounds?" with: "I claim that the belief in a Christian Heaven is unreasonable based on the fact that it does not meet the criteria of a reasonable belief" To that, I ask "What constitutes a reasonable belief?" My opponent continues to redefine "reason" however he sees fit, despite defining it in Round 2. This time, he states that reason is based on facts, and that if it contradicts fact, it cannot be reasonable. My opponent argues that the Christian Heaven cannot be reasonable because it is "impossible" and "absurd", never stating how he came up with that statement, improperly equivocating "scientific" with "reasonable", redefining "reasonable" round by round with bad logic until it looks exactly like "scientific". Audience, please do not be fooled. My opponent has not shown the belief in the Christian heaven to be impossible, absurd, illogical or factually wrong. He has *only*, throughout this entire debate, stated it to be unscientific, and failed to show that something that is unscientific is definitively wrong. Audience, let me ask you something: My opponent himself claims that he "fails to see how hoping that something will prevent death from happening can be considered reasonable". My opponent concedes that "the fear of death is reasonable in itself ". 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? Is it reasonable for humans to fear? Is it reasonable for humans to hope? Humans use reason to make day-to-day decisions, yes, but is my opponent correct in saying that reason must be the product of indisputable logic? Do we not use reason and act reasonably when information is missing or ambiguous? Human beings are not omniscient. We do not know everything and yet, we are reasonable beings not because we act ONLY based on what we know to be absolutely true, but because we act in accordance with our humanity. Our instinct, our emotions, our fears and the way we cope with them, these are the aspects of reason that my opponent fails to incorporate into his definition, and all of those things make it perfectly reasonable for afterlife beliefs to exist, including, but not limited to, the Christian heaven. There are far too many holes in my opponent's logic, too many re-definitions, too many times he has equivocated "scientific" with "reasonable", and no arguments that actually make sense. Audience, I beseech you, examine what my opponent has actually managed to construct. There isn't anything that properly stands. Thank you.