The existence of a god is a logical certainty

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic, you don't realize how much this actually means to me as an atheist. Therefore I will precede with my arguments. First to set up my fundamental framework for the purpose of this round I think you forgot the resolution "The existence of a god is a logical certainty" Your resolution explicitly says that God has to be a logical certainty. So that automatically sets you up to lose. In order for you to win this debate you must prove that without a shadow of a doubt that god exist. That means if one person even doubts the existence of god, You Lose. The way in which the resolution is framed does not grant you the ground to assume that even if God had once existed that he still exist. Your burden in this round- according to the grammaticism of your sentence- makes you obliged to prove that God is in existence presently. But if God were still in existence would he allow so much suffering or wouldn't he make himself transparent. There are two specific reasons why I brought this up 1. In the Judeo-Christian religion, god is supposed to be this caring being. So that means if he still existed he wouldn't let all of his children suffer. Now I know your next argument will be about freewill and sin, but that doesn't explain why an omnipotent being would allow children to suffer or cause natural disasters in a place. For example, If I'm parent that just had a child and I'm a "saved" person and tried to live my life right. Isn't it kind of cruel for my child to come out with a broken arm, considering that my newborn has committed no sin. Why would an onipotent caring being allow for this to happen. It makes no sense. 2. In your example about Greek gods, you disprove there existence by even mentioning them. I'll ellaborate In ancient Greece the Gods always came in contact with humans and it was always visible to a large sum of people. So my question is, if those gods were still in existence wouldn't they still be in contact with there creations. And since we have no account of people contacting those gods now. They surely can not still exist. And since you must prove according to your resolution that God( or Gods) still exist you lose. Now to refute your weak syllogism: Majority of your premises are just ridiculously ambiguous. I will grant you 1-3 three. Something must have sparked the creation of the universe, but there is no logical evidence indicating that any of the supreme beings will live for infinity. Especially if there has not been a clear way of telling if a God is undoubtedly real. Furthermore, you can't make the argument that the beings/Gods will live forever until you prove infinity. Every natural concept that mankind knows according to science must come to the end. In fact, even in the bible, God says himself "I am the alpha and Omega". Thus proving your premise four wrong. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out once one of premises are gone in syllogism, then your entire argument is destroyed. So you have to prove all f your premises Next on to Premise five: You also have no evidence proving that any being was ever powerful enough to create itself! And you assume that that being had to create itself, which to mankind is impossible to believe with certainty. Next on to your existence arguments, I concede that you must exist to think but that works agains't your argument for a God to. Because we're able to think we have doubt, and if doubt occurs about God. Then he can't be all powerful because he would not let you doubt him. We would know for sure that he exists as a result of fully thinking a God out, But the opposite occurs. We come to the conclusion that we can never know for sure if God exist. Oh and just for clarification about your definition of existence, defined by Merriam-Webster as "actual or present occurrence" Present means that it must still be and since I have disproved your assumption that God still exist. Then you lose. I will happily be awaiting your response