It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

"I agree with my opponent that we cannot a priori rule out faith as the result of logic" - Opponent's first concession to the resolution. "Again, I am not saying that faith as a result of logic should be ruled out a priori," - Opponent's second concession to the resolution. "Next, my opponent presents some formal logic leading to an inference in God. While this could lead to faith for some," - Opponent's third concession to the resolution. I have added the above quotes to show my opponent what a concession looks like. He has continuously made the assertion that I dropped arguments. Dear opponent, you spent the entire debate arguing something entirely different than the topic resolution. I do not have the burden to challenge invalid objections. In fact, I have no burden at all anymore, since you've openly conceded that logic can lead to faith. Your entire burden was to negate this premise. You've committed suicide. That being said, I much appreciate the effort and fervor of my opponent. It was an interesting exchange, despite the overused theme. I hope we attract a modest audience, although I quite predict a lack of interest. Whomever you are, dear voter, you have my gratitude for reading my dribble. Conclusive Review: The Burden - "The BoP is on Pro to show why it is logical to hold such a belief" "in the Judeo-Christian God." **Note** The burden does not demand a proof for God, a mechanisms for God, a logic for God or an understanding of God. The burden demands a logic for a belief. This point cannot be discussed, dropped or debated. My opponent is locked into the resolution, despite his best protest. My Arguments - Round 1 - In the Judeo-Christian context, faith is not a choice. This point provided a logic for faith based on formal reasoning. The premise is outlined in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. From this point, we can conclude that faith in God is logical because faith is granted by a supernatural mechanism. My opponent has failed to challenge the logic. Instead, he chose an appeal to authority, claiming that "not everyone believes this". A pointless objection. Round 2 - Mathematical constants suggest intelligent order. The Golden ratio, also called the divine proportion, is a number that repeats throughout creation. It governs the structures of living organisms and lifeless currents of wind. It is a logical conclusion to an observed pattern, that an intelligent order or structured creation mechanism is behind the pattern. Pay special attention to this premise. It is a sufficient logic to arrive at faith. My opponent challenged this premise with disbelief. He demanded evidence. I provided the evidence in round 3. The opponent continues to avoid the subject by negotiating a "concession" or dropped argument. I did not drop the argument as the objection demands proof for God, not logic for faith. My opponent attempts misdirection. My argument stands unchallenged. Consider, I only need to provide a reason for faith, I do not need to discount other possibilities. That would be superfluous to my burden. Also Round 2 - I provided six definitions of logic. While my opponent protests the application of the term, his problem is with the dictionary, not with me. If he wanted to restrict me that much, he should have put forth a better effort in his round one solution to define the debate terms. He would accuse me of semantics, yet it took almost no effort on my part to show the voter that my opponent is guilty of attempting to censor the definitions set forth by the American dictionary. In addition, my opponent's persistent attempt to change the burden from the round one definition has cost me valuable space and fair access to the topic. I accepted the debate to exchange on the basis of the terms set forth in the resolution. It is not my burden to provide proof of God. My opponent wastes valuable character space with his flagrant lies. 　 Round 3 - Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument is not only acceptable, his credentials far exceed my opponent's expectation. The Philosophy News journal lauded Doctor Plantigna as one of the foremost living philosophers. He was admitted as being successful in making "theism safe for philosophy". In fact, his work is so highly respected, a super-atheist evolutionary journal supplied his arguments on "falsifying ID", stating that "Philosopher Alvin Plantinga Demolishes Part of Kitzmiller Decision." Quite the humble admission for such a biased resource. My opponent can rage against his formal reasoning with all his energy. In the end, Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument is not only sufficient to conclude to faith, it is groundbreaking and formidable. ------------------------------------ Final Rebuttal: 　 Con said: I'm saying that faith cannot be used as a starting point for logic. Rebuttal: Not part of the resolution. We resolved that logic can lead to faith, not that faith can lead to logic. Invalid.=========== Con said: As I stated previously, this debate from a point of agnosticism, not faith, and it is up to My opponent to prove why faith is logical, without using faith as part of his logic to get there. Rebuttal: Show me where it states this in the resolution, or did you by chance add this later?=========== Con said: "A limited thing cannot explain itself," should be thrown out. Rebuttal: Do you have proof for the origin of the universe?========== Con said: P1:When I place a tooth under my pillow at night, there is a coin there instead in the morning.P2:Teeth don't magically disappear under pillows without a cause.C:Therefore, there must be a tooth fairy that is making the change. Rebuttal: Disingenuous. Let's do this properly. P1: When I place a tooth under my pillow at night, there is a coin there instead in the morning. P2: Teeth don't magically disappear under pillows without a cause. C: Therefore, a cause outside of myself is making the change.