Logic suggest that some sort of creative, conscious God may exist . . .

My opponent is frustrated and claims I'm being intellectually dishonest and unethical. However, I want to demonstrate that it is he who is being intellectually dishonest. He claims that I would be arguing the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) in this debate; TAG is defined as "the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a Christian theistic worldview" (1); it argues the existence of God in terms of a Christian worlview. I made it abundantly clear in ROUND 1 of this debate that alternative Gods could exist beyond the Christian God, even presenting several generalized possibilities. I made no claim I would be defending the possible existence of a Christian God and relying on TAG. My opponent's error.My opponent claims that I ignored his Modal Argument for Atheism, which he presents as relying on Ryan Singer's validity framework to support the position that atheism is more logical, because you can plug in more to support p from the Set of E (claims that support atheism) than refute p from the Set of f (claims that support God); he also claims that the only position in the Set of f is "God exist". However, I did rebut his Modal Argument for Atheism because it relies on TAG - even presenting potential Gods that exist that would not be subject to the argument! (Example: God is the universe, God is a devil, etc.) I even stated that Ryan Stinger's framework can be valid for Gods that his cricitisms can be directed at (the problem of evil, the problem of apparent naturalism, etc.).But to show that Ryan Singer's framework still suffers from a weakness that my opponent claims exist exclusively with the claim "God exist", I'm going to show that the Set of E is exactly the same thing as "it happened by chance". Thus Singer's framework, though useful, still suffers from the same weakness that he claims exsit with the Set of f - "God exist."A) Natural Laws exist in this universeTheist position: God (may have) created them. Atheist position: it happened by chance.B) The electron mass is just right to allow matter to congregate, galaxies to form, complex biological life to develop.Theist position: God made the conditions just right. Atheist position: it happened by chance - (multi-verse hypothesis or just amazing luck).My opponent also presents a situation in which he argues that the multi-verse hypothesis need not be consulted to explain the ideal conditions for complex biological life in our universe. He restates an assertion by Paul Davies:"There's a famous story . . . about the time traveler who goes back in time and . . . decides to shoot his younger self to see what would happen. He takes a rifle with him, seeks out his younger self and raises the rifle to shoot through the heart. But his aim isn't very good, it's a little bit wobbly, so he hits his younger self in the shoulder instead, merely wounding him. The reason his aim isn't so good is because he's got this shoulder wound from an earlier shooting incident! So you see, it's possible to conceive of temporal loops of that sort without encountering a paradox." - Paul Davies (2).However, this scenario doesn't support atheism. It supports an intelligent designer and defines man as a species that that develops into God, ultimately evolving into a life form that can potentially alter the laws of physics, construct a time machine, travel back to the big bang, and alter the universe so that it can have just the right conditions to harbor biological life. Man becomes God, and potentially has the ability to construct news worlds with new physics. (Perhaps this is the supernatural God of this universe, who created my opponent. It's still God.) My opponent posited that a God would be required for this scenario of a time loop to be sound.ConclusionMy opponent is exasperated. The truth is God very well may exist, and evidence is emerging that shows that the physical constants and the attributes in this universe are just right for COMPLEX and INTELLIGENT BIOLOGICAL LIFE. My challenger argues that empirical evidence isn't support for the logical argument that an intelligent designer may exist. How wrong he is! He should be knowledgable enough with logic to know that logic that is sound (factually true) isn't just valid, but is composed of propositions that are factual truth claims. Inductive logic is logic that is supported by propositions that assess data to reach a conclusion.The argument for intelligent design does just this. The conditions of our universe are ideal to support complex biological life. That this universe was constructed by an intelligent designer is a perfectly feasible conclusion, considering the data.If my opponent wants to continue arguing that atheism is more logical valid than the many varieties of theism, that's his burden to bear. Sources(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://www.edge.org...