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

Preliminary Note: If my opponent and I seem to be arguing past each other, note that it is because I have rejected the two different definitions my opponent provided in Rounds 3 and 4 and am only using the definition posted in Round 2. I have already stated in the previous rounds that I do not accept re-definition. Official Definition provided by my Opponent in Round 2: "Reason is the process by which we make sense of things, **mostly** by using logic" In Rounds 3 and 4, my opponent redefines "reason" twice and blames me for judging him incorrectly. Round 3: "Reason is in fact the process by which we apply logic" Round 4: "Reason is in fact the process by which we apply logic TO MAKE SENSE OF THINGS" In these definitions, my opponent redefines Reason such that logic is no longer what is "mostly" used, but the "ONLY" thing that is used. My opponent twists the definition ever so slightly each time to try to avoid addressing the logical fallacy present with his original definition. I no longer address these arguments because they constitute a violation of Round 1. *** Audience, this has been a thrilling discussion. I had originally thought that when my opponent said that he would like to keep Round 4 "for closing", it meant that we wouldn't offer any rebuttals, only conclusions. However, since my opponent would like to offer rebuttals, I shall do so as well. My criticisms of my opponent's debate basically sum up into three points: 1. The logical failure of his syllogism based on the definitions he initially provided 2. The constant redefinition, rewording, and ambiguity of the definition of "reason" 3. The failure of my opponent to demonstrate that the belief in Heaven is both unscientific *and* unreasonable. No matter what my opponent says, these are the three factors that you, audience, should keep in mind. *** I provided an in-depth analysis on why my opponent's syllogism represents a logical fallacy in Round 2 and my opponent has done everything in his power to avoid being called out on it. I do not accept re-definition, as per the rules of Round 1 to which my opponent agreed. My refusal to offer a rebuttal on a logically fallacious argument does not constitute a violation of protocol, it is simply the only thing I can do when the logic of an argument is fundamentally flawed and also when my opponent offers a definition, then changes it in the next round to suit his needs. The second half of my opponent's argument is supposed to be a justification on why he thinks that "A belief in a Christian Heaven is unreasonable precisely BECAUSE it is unscientific", which he has not done the entire debate. In round two, I have shown that the reasons for this belief are rooted in human nature itself, that we are naturally rational beings but not necessarily scientific beings. That our ability to reason is a subset of our humanity and not necessarily based solely on scientific fact. Not only that, but I asked my opponent a very important question: 'Do we not use reason and act reasonably when information is missing or ambiguous? ' To which my opponent replied: Yes we do, I do not get my opponent's point; we indeed use reason when information is missing or ambiguous, but I fail to see how that is in anyway linked to a reasonable belief. It is the 'duty' of the reasonable person is to NOT believe something (which is different from believing that something is false) when the information is missing or ambiguous. This is the crux of our disagreement. As I stated in Round 3, Human beings have the innate ability to reason and we do so constantly, based on the information that we are given. However, we are not omniscient. We cannot simply wait for all the facts to be in before we decide to live our lives. The admitted failure of my opponent to understand my argument is based on his dogmatic belief that only what is definitively SCIENTIFIC should have a place in our day-to-day reasoning. The reasonable person has a duty to reject an idea if it is proven to be factually incorrect, but I see no argument that says that a person should reject an idea or exclude it from their culture or their lives simply because it does not abide by scientific principles. This is why I have been pushing for my opponent to argue why SCIENCE is necessarily the only way by which we can "make sense of the world". It is because his argument is completely nonsensical without that preliminary argument. Audience, the process by which you decide your vote is relatively simple. We all know what the belief in Heaven is. My arguments have shown the anthropological, sociological, and psychological roots for the belief, the pervasiveness of Afterlife beliefs for cultures worldwide, why humans hold afterlife beliefs, and how they make sense of their lives in conjunction with this belief. I have argued that it is unreasonable to assume that Science and Logic are the only ways by which we make sense of our lives, though logic may make up a majority based on my opponent's first definition. My opponent's duty is to show that the belief in a Christian Heaven is unscientific and unreasonable, and the only argument he has come up with, is that "What is unscientific is necessarily unreasonable". My opponent has not given any justification on why he believes this to be so, and even concedes that reasonable action can be taken even in ignorance. The fact of the matter is that my opponent has been unable to distinguish between "scientific" and "reasonable" throughout the entire debate, redefining and equivocating in lieu of providing a logical argument to link them together, and as such, has failed to meet his burden. Thank you to the audience, and to my opponent.