Theistic beliefs can be rational.

Thanks to my opponent for his final round argument. == MY CASE== C1) Suggestive Evidence". .. my rebuttal were made not with the ultimate goal of disproving the existence of God absolutely as my opponent seems to be suggesting, but to prove that there is no rational connection in the arguments' premises to God or that the argument itself is irrational. "I realize that my opponent is not attempting to disprove the existence of God. However, what he WAS trying to do was show that my arguments do not logically prove the existence of God. Yet again, I was never trying to prove the existence of God. .. I was simply showing that God's existence is plausible enough to rationally believe in. Con has not shown that the arguments I presented do not add plausibility to the existence of God. .. I have already explained in depth why a metaphysical cause is just as plausible as any other baseless theoretical framework for what could have caused the Big Bang, and I have already explained why an intelligent designer of sorts is a perfectly plausible explanation for the universe's numerous cosmological coincidences. These arguments DO make God's existence plausible, thus making theistic beliefs rational. C2) Spiritual ExperiencesAh, it seems that Con has finally decided to rebut my contention for real, this time :PCon asserts that spiritual experiences are all lies or have materialistic causes. I will not pretend that there aren't some reported incidents of spiritual experiences that are complete lies, but I will argue against the notion that all of them have materialistic causes. "One thing that cannot be denied is that Jill's experience and its causes correlates exactly with those of Tibetan monks entering their realm of spirituality. To me, this parallel is powerful. The conclusion I present will hopefully undermine my opponent's entire second contention: Since spiritual experiences can be mapped down to a science. .. [they] cannot be credited to a supernatural source. " There are many problems with this line of thinking. ..1) It is an example of correlation/causation fallacy. Two experiences seeming neurologically similar is not a valid basis to believe that they both shared the same cause, especially since the observed monk wasn't having a stroke, which was the sole cause of Jill's experience.2) Even if that specific correlation did equate to causation, to assume from there that ALL such "out-of-body" experiences are caused by that neurological effect would be making an incredibly broad generalization from a very small sample size, which is logically fallacious no matter how you look at it.3) EVEN if all "out-of-body" experiences had materialistic explanations, that would not translate to all spiritual experiences having materialistic explanations because "out-of-body" experiences are just one type of spiritual experience. There are visions, other types of sensations, fulfilled prayers, and plenty of other things of the like that would serve as a rational basis for theistic belief. I have shown that Con's method of arriving at his conclusion from his cited example is logically fallacious at every level. He has failed to show that all spiritual experiences are likely to have materialistic causes. Thus, it is not at all irrational for theists to attribute seemingly-spiritual experiences to the divine and base their theistic beliefs off of them. == CON'S CASE == R1) Lack of EvidenceCon concedes that my contentions serve as a direct rebuttal to this argument; all it would take is one of my contentions being affirmed to refute it this, and I have affirmed both. Therefore, this argument is completely refuted. R2) Logic ArgumentThanks to Con for his clarification of this argument. "Q = It is rational to doubt theistic beliefs. <- I hold this as a base assumptionQ = It is rational to doubt theistic beliefs. ! !Q (not not Q) = Q, ! !Q is therefore true. !! Q = It is not rational to not doubt theistic beliefs = It is irrational to [follow] theistic beliefs. "This argument's flaw is in its final statement. .. "It is not rational to not doubt theistic beliefs" =/= "It is irrational to follow theistic beliefs". "not doubting" =/= "following". One can follow theistic beliefs while still doubting them every once in a while (i. e. maintaining a healthy skepticism)"not doubting" = "unquestioningly following", and "unquestioningly following" =/= "following". Con's argument from logic does not hold up to scrutiny. == CONCLUSIONS ==Both of my contentions affirm the resolution. Con's first contention is refuted as long as one of my contentions hold true, and both of them do. I have refuted Con's second contention. Thus, Con has not upheld his BOP, while I have.