It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

My opponent seems to think he can justify faith as logic by looking at all of the definitions, but he is mistaken. None of the definitions say anything about faith in the slightest.Definition 1. My opponent is not using formal logic deductions.2. Inference does not equal faith.3. Even in Theology, faith is not part of the system and principles of reasoning.4. Faith is not reason.5. "My opponent wishes to debate the logic of God without actually talking about God." Not true at all. I never said this debate was intended to not be actually about God. That was the original intention.6. That is definitely not about faith.7. "Places, people, events, calendars and methods are seem to conclude the Bible has viable content of fact." My opponent makes this huge assertion without any proof whatsoever. Until such proof becomes clear, we cannot regard the Bible as anything more than fairytales.Definitions 8 and 9 were also conceded to be not about faith.My opponent contends that he has met his BoP. He has not. To meet his burden of proof he must explain why it is logical to believe the Bible is accurate on the subject of God. "It is profusely sound reasoning and one does not require faith to understand it."One does need faith to understand my opponent's R1 article. One must have faith in the accuracy of the Bible to see the argument as logical. My opponent seems to think his axiom is the truth of the Bible, when it is not. We start from agnosticism. "Therefore, my argument is extended and remains entirely unchallenged." Untrue. I did challenge the argument as invalid. This charge was dropped, and thus conceded. Pro's R1 argument falls."It is not my burden to provide proof of God. It is my burden to provide a logic for faith."It is illogical to believe in something if there is no proof for it. Thus part of providing logic for faith is providing proof for God."Wishful thinking. Again, my burden is to provide a logic for faith, not a logic for his existence."Providing logic for faith and logic for existence are close to the same thing. Pro dropped my charge that his R1 argument was invalid. Drops equal concessions. Therefore, his R1 argument falls.The Golden RatioThe existence of certain patterns appearing is not the result of design. All that it means is that those patterns are advantageous, so they develop in that way. "The incredible commonality of divine proportions can be seen in the biotic and abiotic. From the proportions of the human body to the structure of galaxies, the golden ratio is ever pervasive."My opponent provides no evidence that the golden ratio does appear. Not everyone agrees with this [1]. The golden ratio was first discovered by the Egyptians and the pyramids were built using aspects of the golden ratio [1]. So there are a couple of possibilities:We could say that the Egyptian Gods were the real Gods.orMy opponent has not given us reason to believe that the Bible had divine origins. If humans wrote the Bible, maybe they used common mathematical ratios of the time.So the argument:A pattern appears in nature.It also appears in the Bible.Therefore the Bible is accurate and God exists.Just doesn't work. This logic is not sound because he makes the assumptions that: 1. The Bible is divine in some way.2. The golden ratio could not occur by chance.Conclusion:So far my opponent has not justified faith in the Bible's accuracy on God. Pro attempted to show that faith can count as logic, but this was refuted.He conceded his R1 argument as invalid.His R2 argument's logic is also not sound.The resolution is negated.Source[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...