Yes! There are laws of reasoning that you have to obey and if you violate them you are being unreasonable.
But no laws of reasoning were violated here. Rather, there was a disagreement on the underlying facts.
Because you cannot independently arrive at the conclusion that god exists using any of our evidence gathering tools right now. If you had an agent who could reason using evidence perfectly, it would not be able to derive the existence of any deity. You can only arrive at religion if you made an error in reasoning: A fundamental attribution error if you were a caveman, not changing your mind when new evidence comes in if you were alive during the enlightenment or simply weighing irrelevant evidence such as what you were told when you were young or what simply feels good if you're in a cult.
Prove it. You started with "you cannot" so I seriously doubt you can prove that. It tends to be exceedingly difficult to prove even seemingly obvious statements of the form "you cannot" or "there are none." You can't even prove that there are no vanilla and strawberry ice cream cones orbiting Alpha Centauri.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.