It is unreasonable to not believe in God.

Thanks Pro.Skepticism is rationalRejecting claims that are absent evidence or reasons for accepting them is a rational, and the only rational stance to take. We do not need to wait for evidence of non-existence, or non-truth to assume a claim is false first.I will demonstrate such by reducio ad absurdum, that is to accept positive claims (such as those for asserting existence) are true, or more likely true than false a priori. To give a colloquial example, it is more likely true than false that there is a teapot in existence a specific location around Mars.A: All positive claims are more likely true than false (Assumption)Then we need to consider what such an assumption would entail. It would mean we could make a list of every single logically possible claim that can be conceived, and label them “more likely true than false” at first sight. Here I can insert these all as premises:1) Therefore, claim A is more likely true than false2) Therefore, claim B is more likely true than false3) Therefore, claim C is more likely true than falseInfinity) Therefore, claim “…” is more likely true than falseWhat we also need to consider though, is that claims don’t occur in a vacuum, they exist within our reality, within our universe. At the very least they exist conceptually, and hence subject to logical laws, it also means that the concept that is real cannot contradict anything in reality. For every positive claim, there are an infinite number of mutually exclusive claims, for example a teapot at Cartesian location (x,y,z) around Mars means there cannot be also be a kettle at Cartesian location (x,y,z) around Mars, nor anything and everything else physical.Therefore, we know that the assumption “all positive claims are more likely true than false” is a false one.To complete the argument:A: All positive claims are more likely true than false (Assumption)P1) If ‘A’ is true, then at least one positive claim is more likely true than falseP2) If one positive claim is more likely true than false, then another positive claim is more likely false than trueP3) If one positive claim is more likely false than true, then not all positive claims are more likely true than falseC) If positive claims are more likely true than false, then not all positive claims are more likely true than false. ‘A’ entails a contradiction; therefore ‘A’ is false.Via. reducio ad absurdum, the notion that we should accept all claims more likely true than false is dispelled. This does not entail from scepticism, which assumes all claims are more likely false than true. In fact, scepticism is the *only* position which does not run into variations of the argument I have just presented, since claims of non-existence doesn’t entail anything that can contradict any positive claims.It’s for this reason why mathematical proofs are sceptical until the logical progression can be shown. Why scientific papers are most frequently rejected, and why any claim in academia is rejected until sufficient evidence is given for its positive truth. It establishes the burden of proof, which on scepticism is always on the one with the positive claim. In this case, the God hypothesis.Application of Skepticism to GodThere is no singular definition of ‘God’, but most would agree at the very least it would have the following attributes:OmnipotenceOmniscienceIntelligenceFree WillCausal AgencyCreator of the universeThere are a plethora of other attributes, but they are unnecessary for my argument. It is little in despite there can only ever be one omnipotence, and one omniscience, and one creator of the universe. These are *exclusive* claims to God, and God only. It follows logically then that to assert a being with the above six attributes to be true is to assert: 1. The positive claim of anything else having omnipotence is false 2. The positive claim of anything else having omniscience is false 3. The positive claim of anything else creating the universe is false As such we already see where scepticism comes in, because we have no reason a priori to think any of these 3 claims are any more likely than the ‘God’ claim of six attributes is to be false. Moreover, the definition of God I provided is much more complex than the simple contradictory claims I made (omnipotence omniscience, universal creation), which runs into Occam’s Razor.Therefore, from what I have argued so far, it is not unreasonable to not believe in God. No more unreasonable to not believe in God’s existence than it is to not believe in any other mythological claim (Leprechauns, Santa Claus, etc).Rebuttals:Teleological ArgumentsPro attempts a teleological fine tuning argument, of the sort. Note that his argument, formally, appears to be the following:P1) If the Earth were not designed, then life would not existP2) Life existsC) The Earth was designed Obviously, my bone of contention is going to be with P1.He attempts to argue for P1 by asserting that life would most likely be impossible without delicately balanced variables (which would require ‘balancing’ by an intelligent designer). However in making this argument he consequently must also assert the following: 1. He knows *all* the ways in which life could arise (chemically, physically, etc) 2. He knows *all* conditions (without design) possible the universe 3. He (therefore) knows that *none* of the conditions possible (without design) within the universe would allow for life Given that life as far as we understand, is a complex, convoluted self-replicating system with the ability to adapt over generations, it is hard to see how all possible ways this is physically possible have been assessed yet. This includes all the possible ways such a system could arise which resemble nothing like life that is extant on Earth today, for *anything* which is capable of asking the question “How am I here” would indeed do so, and we would be left in the same position that Pro asserts we are in.Life on Earth, is plastic to a plethora of environments, from the frigid -70oC environment of Antarctica to the oxygen, and light and oxygen deprived boiling environment of hydrothermal vents.[1] Given that on just our planet, life (which is just one of many possible ways it would be) is rather plastic, then its requirement for the fine tuning Pro presented (atmosphere, oxygen content, heating cycles) seems frivolous.Furthermore, according to Murphy’s law can possibly happen, will eventually happen. So, even if any life requires a fine balancing of conditions and variables, then given enough ‘attempts’, we will eventually run into the right circumstances for some form of life to arise.Note that there are roughly 10^24 stars (ten with twenty three 0’s after it) in the universe, with a comparable number of planets.[2] Greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth. To assert that chance probably couldn’t cause life on one of them seems… frivolous.Pro’s other teleological argument from ‘complex meaningful information’ runs into serious problems since: 1. ‘Complex meaningful information’ is undefined 2. An objective means for determine what would constitute complex meaningful information is non-existent Absent these, we cannot make any claims about the nature of ‘complex meaningful information’, nor can we assert that life contains it.Pro asserts for example that we can deduce “John 1800” on a rock most likely has an intelligent source. However, Pro’s implication that we deduce it has an intelligent source *because* it is complex meaningful information is unsubstantiated.The considerations that Pro ignores is: 1. We know humans exist 2. We know the things humans generally create (e.g. the English language, English words and numerals) 3. We know the things that non-humans (including natural processes) generally don’t make If for example we visited another planet, and saw a rough “John 1800” ‘carving’ on the rock, then we would be much more hard-pressed to assume it is of an intelligent source. The same applies to life.Cosmological ArgumentAssuming the universe had a start with the Big Bang, why should that cause be most likely God?First, Pro presents a false dichotomy:God or Random ChanceHe ignores all other possible solutions, such as metaphysical necessity, underlying physical principles, physical reality being eternal despite the universe having a beginning, etc.I am not advocating for any of these, only demonstrating how easy it is to break the dichotomy with other unsupported assumptions (such as the God hypothesis).Even assuming that without God we only have random chance (which is false), so what? IF universes can appear to exist via. random chance, then according to Murphy’s Law, some MUST arise via. it. Pro can appeal to the mystery of why the universe, and nature tends to follow natural laws, but that is not an argument for God.Note that nature is fundamentally, to some degree rather random and indeterminate, as quantum mechanics dominates at small scales. However this strange, rather random behaviour resolves to ordered, macroscopic behaviour at larger scales, and Newton’s Classical laws arise from the world of quantum mechanics, despite being fundamentally different.Pro may argue that we don’t know if QM in indeed random or indeterminate, but that would miss the point, since indeterministic and genuinely random interpretations of QM give exactly the same predictions of reality as other interpretations, thereby is at the very least is compatible with reality we observe if it was true.[3]References 1. http://www.pnas.org... 2. http://phl.upr.edu... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...