It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

My arguments last round were made anticipating Con would copy material across from another of his debates. [1] So this will be fun. :) Before I demonstrate why his rebuttals didn't work, I will be refuting what I regard as the most fallacious case I have ever argued against on DDO. 1) Con's Argument from Non-cognitivism deconstructed: The argument from Non-cognitivism asserts that if the term 'God' does not meet a certain criteria of attributes (made up by atheists to refute God), it becomes meaningless. I hope you can start to see the fallacies immediately. 1.1 The argument defines God as a term; not a being Pro admits that when he talks about God, he means a word. "A meaningless word can't have any..." However, the debate has a clear set definition of God as being Tri-omni creator of the universe. Con cannot ignore the definitions in order to discredit God. It is presupposed in this debate that 'God' is a being, not a word. We are arguing as to whether or not we should label 'existence' as one of his definitions. 1.2 The argument defines God out of existence Since the argument does not allow God to have a definition greater than being a word, it concludes that such a word is empty and thus any being that correlates to the word is also meaningless. The problem with this is that words mean nothing; it’s the thing the word represents that has value. Does not knowing about a word mean it is useless? Far from it. I will be discussing this point in more detail further on. 1.3 The argument is formulated by subjective opinion over facts. The argument from Non-cognitivism presupposes that everything in existence must have the 3 attributes mentioned in order to mean anything, since no justification could be made; it falls into the category of opinion and ideas. 1.4 The argument cannot be applied to anything immaterial (like logic) The argument as an entirety is demonstrateably false when it is consider that many things that exist do not have any of the attributes. Logical processes, logical laws that I have already established in this debate have objective existence refute the argument. The argument uses logic to prove that logic does not exist. Self-defeating. 1.5 The argument has no supporting evidence or justification to make us believe it I'm sure anyone reading this debate would have noticed that not a single premise let alone the conclusion was supported by anything at all. No reasoning, no logical justification and no evidence. Premise 5 for example, is easily dismissed without evidence since it was brought up without evidence: 'an attribute-less term is meaningless.' Why is that? The word 'idea' has no attributes whatsoever, regardless of the failure for the word idea to have an attribute, we know that ideas exist in reality. There is no correlation between the properties of a word and the object it represents. 1.6 The argument has false premises including an invalid conclusion A simple way to demolish the argument is to simply define the term 'God.' This however, defies the scientific principle of Occam’s razor, which states that one cannot apply more assumptions than what is absolutely necessary.[2] Is this a problem for my case? Not at all. It simply means that Con would not like me to use scientific practices in my search of anything transcendental or supernatural. This throws another ratchet into this already debunked argument. Systematically searching for a God is a science of origins, even though God Himself is not scientific. Even if the search for origins were not scientific, the scientific practice of proving/disproving the null-hypothesis would force us to consider God as a possible answer. [3] The argument from Non-cognitivism would see that we disregard scientific method in order to call God a useless term. Science vs. Cons argument? Science FTW! Other premises that do not have any support that need support include premises 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7. In other words, all of them. Please explain. 2) Con's argument from correct choice deconstructed: The first 4 words of the first premise in this argument make up the first reason why this argument is false. 'Materialist apologetics is true,' this argument presupposes that materialism is true even though I had demonstrated it as false in Round 2. Furthermore, this argument is simply just original research from a guy called Francois Trembley. The copied material can be found here: [4] Trembley, on his website had a page that argued that Materialism is true. He called this materialist apologetics, he then joined that onto the page where Con got his material from and basically said that since he had shown that his materialist apologetics is correct, then the first premise of this new argument he had made was justified. Not the case for this debate. Furthermore, the justifications for each premise were found on the website, but Con did not copy them across to here. Each premise is therefore unsound. Since the first premise is false, (and a few others too, not enough characters to explain) and since each premise lacks any sort of logical justification, all are false until demonstrated elsewise. Moving onto defence of my arguments. 3) In defence of the TAG I read the rebuttal that Con copied nearly word for word from his last debate while I was formulating my TAG argument. To ensure maximum embarrassment and pre-emptive damage, I disproved the notion that logical laws were contingent on matter existing. Oblivious Con comes along and bases his entire rebuttal on the assertion that "They're contingent on existence," which was just refuted. He showed no evidence, and thus my pre-emptive rebuttal stands. Furthermore, he failed to show how logical laws exist without a similarly transcendent law giver; he simply tries to shift the burden of proof back by asking questions. This argument ties with the Kalam Cosmological argument, everything existing needs a cause, and Con will have to argue a better alternate cause than God to show that it is illogical to believe in God as per the resolution. In defence of the Ontological Argument I would like to point out that the ontological argument I used was not the one Con refuted. LOL! Anyways, refuting the famous Gaunilo's argument, this argument is known to have serious mathematical flaws. The first one being that it substitutes an infinite non variable with a finite integer-representable entity. A Greatest possible being is infinite, a perfect island is a contradiction, as there will always be an island greater than it and that such an island has a subjective definition, unlike God. 1) There exists an island greater than the perfect island. 2) Such an island has no physical boundaries or forms 3) Such an island is capable of thought and being 4) Such a being is tri-omni 5) This tri-omni being is God. We are unable to define a perfect island, but we can define the greatest possible being, that which nothing can be greater. Con didn't attack any premise, and used the wrong counter-arguments as the one I used was not actually affected by the Gaunilo's parody. Interchanging terms makes contradictions. Furthermore, the parody arguments used by Con were unsound and committed the fallacy of false analogy, in Con's 4 premise version; the Conclusion does not logically follow the premise, a non-sequitur fallacy. This is because the argument I used was a valid reductio ad absurdum argument, it showed that the negation of the proposition resulted in a contradiction. The parody arguments actually confirm the negation however. "A perfect island does not exist." I have run out of characters at this point, so I will be covering anything missed R4. Sources: [1] http://debate.org... [2] http://math.ucr.edu... [3] http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk... [4] http://www.strongatheism.net...