Any attempt at arguing for the existence an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

I will reply to those in the next round, if necessary. For this round, allow me to just state my case. My opponent claims that the attempt alone, and in and by itself, is illogical, if one argues for the existence of a divine entity as described in the first argument. I say attempting this argumentation is logical, and nothing but. I hope we can agree that being in a state of despair is undesirable. And that it would hence be illogical to want to remain in such state or enter it on purpose. Often, people are shaken in their view of the world by some new scientific findings, which results in despair. For evidence, I present the works of Thomas S. Kuhn on "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Physicists are particularly prone to that. Kuhn describes how many of these physicists consequently turned away from physics towards philosophy and religion. It is commonly accepted that religion can offer comfort, as it provides answers beyond the logic of science. If a person's logical, scientific views of the world are shaken, and the person confused and in despair, it makes perfect sense for that person to seek comfort in religious beliefs. It is thus logical to make that step. Those beliefs can include the belief in the existence of an infinitely-intelligent creator god. If a person believes in something, it is also logical to argue in favour of it, because thus the belief and comfort will be reinforced against criticism from the outside. Criticism like the one my opponent presents, for example. Reinforcing that comfort if it is under attack from the outside is a very logical thing to do, because if the belief falls victim to the criticism, the despair will be back, which is undesirable and harmful. Most famously, Pascal argued in favour of god by a wager: . http://en.wikipedia.org... And while his wager itself may be flawed, it was most logical to attempt it, to make use of modern scientific methods (stochastics in this case) in order to conciliate science and religion, because that conflict is the initial source of the aforementioned despair. If religion and science were not treated as antipodes but rather parallel perspectives, the despair about the failure of scientific knowledge would not even exist. Let me illustrate by a specific example: Research about the origin of the universe has so far always led to the same dead end: What was there before, where did the initial energy of the Big Bang originate from. It is a boundary of physics, especially since physics are a descriptive science, not one offering reasons. Now if a scientist reaches that limit and despairs over the fact that his reasoning has come to an end, transcending that into METAPHYSICS is a logical step. Scientists search for answers. When his research reaches a dead end, our scientist will have to turn elsewhere for answers. The scientist had - prior to this point - believed that his research would lead to an ultimate insight. That's what science is there for: to get the bottom of things. This belief now turns against him, as science ultimately failed him, which leads to a depression. Turning to the thought that a creator god is at the bottom fills that hole, gives the man rest. Now, along comes a former colleague who still believes that science will take him to an ultimate answer and criticizes the scientist for abandoning his scientific logic. The scientist now has a choice: - he can return to science, his faith in scientific research restored: unlikely, as he's already tried and failed - he can concede and fall back into depression, since he is not only without his science, he's now bereft of his comforting belief in god, too: this is highly undesirable, it would be illogical to do so - he can argue for the existence of god and try to hold on to what little comfort he has. Given, this is just one example. But is the man illogical for trying to not lose his mental health? Would it be more logical to have a mental breakdown? Argumentation, for whatever end, is logical, as argumentation is part of the science called logic. "The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content. " (from: . http://en.wikipedia.org... ). While some arguments may be invalid, the PROCESS of argumentation is the VERY logical thing. Hence ATTEMPTING to argue is logical, too. Failure at that is not illogical, it's just a lack of convincing content or false assumptions about connections between parts of the argument. I assume that you were going to argue about whether or not there are rational arguments in favour of the existence of a god as described by you. But that is not the topic you chose. You chose to call ATTEMPTS at argumentation intricately ILLOGICAL based off of their CONTENT. That, however, cannot be the case. Trying to achieve a desirable goal is logical. If one tries by means of argumentation, that is no less logical. No matter what about. The logic lies in defending your point of view for reasons of well-being. If you will concede that, I will gladly turn to the content of your argument on the next round, still, so that you do not feel cheated out of the debate you wanted to have.