It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

Non CognitivismIt seems Pro is equivocating the word “word”. If Pro says God is a being, this would be trying to make “God” a word. Pro seems to think “word” is an attribute instead of a noun.Pro then claims just because he said God isn't a word, doesn't mean he thinks the word "God" doesn't exist. This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.the argument from Non-cognitivism attacks God the word, not God the being.Because God the being has no meaningful definition. I asked Pro to explain what he meant by “being” he hasn't responded, so I will go by the dictionary definition of it.“the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).” [1]"conscious, mortal existence;"These are hardly primary attributes. Concscious just means having knowledge of self existence. This is secondary, since it's what something possess. We can't just define something as “existing”. What is a computer? It is a being! I'm asking you what this being is.2. Pro ignores why God can't be defined this way. He also says we don't have words to define something in science. However things such as numbers describe existence! 1 comes from the observation of objects. Symbolism explains primary attributes in a different way, so that's a flawed response. A deaf person can see reality and apply the law of identity. It's different with God. I already explained this, which Pro flew over.I'll respond to 3 in 5 Because it's the same.4. Pro would be the first to argue if these logical laws didn't exist, reality would be skewed. They're meaningful because of existence.5. Pro claims the law of logic doesn't justify the argument. He gave us the law of identity, yet he doesn't want to go further. A house is a house, this is giving it the nature to have secondary characteristics such as color. Something such as an idea doesn't have the primary attribute to have the secondary attribute of color. So telling us a secondary attribute (like color) without a primary attribute is just telling us nothing. Pro ignores the source by claiming I just copied from the intro. Why did it explain the very thing Pro just did (that everything has a specific nature) if it was just the intro? Looking at more of it tells us it's more than just an intro“Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.”[2]“a statement of an identity is the expression of an abstract relation of identity symbolized by a term (as A in “A is A”) that apparently refers in its separate instances to the subject and predicate respectively”[3]This is simple elementary linguistics. If I'm asking you what the subject is, don't give me a predicate!Pro then thinks that I think my objection to his “idea” argument is valid because the definition was from dictionary.com. No, it's valid because it gives us a primary attributeHe then defines God as follows“'the one Supreme Being”Secondary, as stated in 1.“the creator” Secondary, I didn't ask what God did, I asked what it was. This is clearly secondary“ruler of the universe.”Secondary, I didn't ask what God does. I asked what it was.6. Pro ignores me here. We can only select theories if they have meaning.Pro really didn't refute this one. He equivocates “word”, doesn't refute my justifications by logic and didn't even touch on the analogy justification, ignores me on many things and gives me secondary attributes. I've established “God” is meaningless, by the law of identity, it's just a belief in nothing.“...to say, “A God exists” insofar as it attempts to construct itself as a proposition is false because the term “God” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration.” [4]Argument From Correct ChoicePro ignored this one from start to finish.1) It was justified in “1a,1b, and 1c” I did this to prevent you from making this mistake2) I don't see how this refutes the argument, as I responded to all your arguments.Let's say I bring up the problem of evil and Pro brings up the Kalam. Would a valid objection to the Kalam be “well God has been refuted by the POE”? Would it be a valid objection after Pro responds to it? Of course not, but this is exactly what Pro is doing.TAGI already explained why it was a red herring. It throws us off topic (like it's doing now)would the laws of logic exist if God didn't exist? The answer is unknown, yet the argument is not refutedWhat!? “The answer is unknown”, but that's the very thing you're trying to prove. You basically said it's unsure the TAG proves God. The question alone doesn't refute the argument, but connected with the conclusion it does.He also had an ambiguous counter-argument: laws of logic are contingent not on the mind but on existence. So what is existence? Existence of God?If it was a counter-argument to the laws being contingent on a mind, why did you say the existence could be God? Pro was talking about Occum's razor a while ago. Should we apply it to here, we can cut God out, as it's just an unnecessary assumption, since existence itself could've always existed. There could've been another universe in some other form, the many worlds interpretation could be true, ect. It's allowed by physics! There's no reason whatsoever to posit “God”OntologicalNothing to respond to here. No arguments were given, just Pro saying by response fails. Then an appeal to God claiming it's not mathematically interchangeable. I see no reason why. Pascal's WagerThe wager is a complete fallacy. It's all based on the appeal to consequences of a belief fallacy and argumentum ad baculum [5][6]. Making it flawed. We can make this wager for anythingYou must bow to Magic8000's profile everyday until you die and you will get an infinite reward. If you don't, punishment!Let’s assume that the wager is 99.99999% in the Amagic8000 profile favor of likelihood and 0.000001% in favor of the believer.Magic8000 belier: low but finite number x infinite utility = infinitely good reward. Amagic8000ist: high but finite number x finite utility = finitely good reward.The atheist wager is not that a God doesn't exist, but a traditional God doesn't and a non traditional God does. The non-traditional god sends theists to hell and atheists to heaven. "it will not be as likely true as existing religions and would mathematically be cancelled out.”The likelihood of a religion being true, is not dependent on the existing or tradition of any religion. I can also say the same thing“Making up a religion that states that believing in God will result in heaven is mathematically invalid, as it will not be as likely true as existing religion that say you will go to hell would mathematically be canceled out.”It gets us nowhere. Now go forth and vote!Sources.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://www.strongatheism.net...[5] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...[6] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...