Deism is the only reasonable belief system that includes a god

Thanks Con, I will now rebut your arguments and your rebuttal's to my argument.First of, how dare you say I only concentrate on Christianity and Islam, and then you go on and base every single argument on just Christianity. If I where a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, of Baha’i Faith, a Confucian, a jainist, of Shinto beliefs or a Sikh, (full list here http://www.religionfacts.com...) don't you think I would be offended? I focused on the Bible and the Koran since they are the two largest religions based on number of followers, and they are a few of the more widely known religious texts. If I where to point out all the faults and contradictions within all religions Holy Scriptures, I would be here for days. And how dare you accuse me of using a bias website (which I by the way only cited once), when all your arguments are purely backed up by a Christian website. If you would like to cite the bible, use this https://www.bible.com... since it just shows the bible, and doesn't include things like a blog http://www.biblegateway.com..., which clearly is bias.Now that that is out of the way, I would like to address your arguments. "A theist believes that we should accept the word of God as the proof of their existence."Well, are holy scriptures really the word of god? The Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, they are all based on visions, revelations, hallucinations of mankind, not God. From the historical point of view, holy scriptures are just works written by humans.But then theists argue that God told them that these holy scriptures are the word of God. But where does it say that?; In holy scriptures. Therefore theists are bound to circular reasoning, something you denounced quite clearly in your argument. This is one of the major flaws of theism."It is simply logical that if you are a believer of a religion, you should be able to accept your god's scriptures as true."But one can't know if the holy scriptures are true, something I established before."Also, the fact that a deist feels the need for human reason to justify a god's existence implies that they are questioning his existence to begin with."How does proving his existence, much beyond simply listening to what holy scriptures and preachers say, make deists less faithful believers. On the contrary, that is what makes deists such strong believers, since they have found their own path into a religion, they have reasoned their own believes and found them to be true, they have risen above sheep just following the herd. Very few theistic scholars have committed themselves of reasoning their religion. "Many religions believe in blind faith, the idea that you should believe in God no matter what"Interestingly enough, a Christian (I am just following Cons trend, if someone would like to see examples in other religions, say that in the comments) preacher has made a sermon about this, and he says this "As already pointed out, listening to God must involve God's Word and the Holy Spirit working together in the mind and heart of the believer." So not complete blind following, but rather communication with god. http://www.brandonweb.com..."Why should a devout Christian question God either?"I would like to clarify something you clearly misunderstood when researching deism. Reasoning god isn't the same as questioning god. Deists don't question god, they just reason that he exists, unlike most theistic religions. http://en.wikipedia.org..."However, human reason is flawed and humans do not think or act rationally." This is somewhat off topic, but if you believe humans cannot reason rationally and logically, why are you still arguing?"Take for example, Descartes book, Discourse on the Method."Your major argumentation is because Descartes fails to reason logically on your eyes, all humans on earth don't have the ability to reason logically? I beg to differ. Descartes has had no profound impact on Deism, but rather Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine, a collection of the most brilliant minds of the past few centuries. I sincerely doubt that these men don't have the ability to reason logically. http://en.wikipedia.org..."However, there are several instances where God has played a role in the world. The opening of the Red Sea, the Great Flood, and the plagues sent by God are all instances of how God has helped or punished mankind to steer them on the right path." You are arguing god intervenes with the world by performing miracles. But none of these miracles where proven to happen, so your argument is rendered useless. The opening of the Red Sea-The six-foot-deep waters of the coastal lagoon, a point on the Nile Delta, could have been forced back, with genuine walls of water on either side, by a 63mph wind blowing for 12 hours. So completely theoretically speaking, it was possible. But, as miracles go, God's prophet parting the Red Sea, allowing His people to pass, is quite impressive. A strong wind creating a land bridge in a six-foot-deep lagoon while His people all struggle to stand upright is, frankly, less so. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk... The Great Flood- could not have happened due to tree ring dating that is from before "the great flood", the trees would have been crushed. There are much more factors speaking against floods, but since I am running out of characters, here are some links http://www.biblicalnonsense.com..., http://aigbusted.blogspot.com..., http://thewordofme.wordpress.com.... The Plagues send by God- Historians assert that the plague stories are mythical, allegorical, and inspired by passed-down accounts of disconnected natural disasters. Scientists claim the plagues can be attributed to a chain of natural phenomena triggered by changes in the climate and environmental disasters hundreds of miles away. Not exactly godly intervention. http://en.wikipedia.org... "And how can we not view the creation of the universe as anything but a miracle? Therein lies the contradiction of deism." The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence. —Thomas Hobbes. This quote also represents how deists view the creation of the Universe, something unexplainable. The so called "Miracles" of some theist religions can be explained as faux. "These are the Ten commandments, plain and simple." How do you know that? Did god come down and program that website? Excuse me for going for stupid examples, but this isn't as plain and simple as you think it is. There are two obvious sets of quite different rules/customs in the same scripture that can't b explained. I would just like to conclude this debate on a few thoughts. First of, I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this very interesting debate. I am sorry if I might have attacked you to strongly in this round in particular, it was the heat of the debate! This has been a very unique debate, I believe the first of it's kind, contrasting deism and theism. This debate http://www.debate.org... never finished. In my humble opinion, both deism and theism can be argued to be reasonable religions. Both views should be able to exist together in a modern, un-bias world. I am looking forward to your final argument.