It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

In this round my opponent continues to engage in the semantics of the word logical, distracting from the actual arguments themselves. In the first two rounds, I challenged Pro's logic as unsound and my charges were dropped, thus conceded. I intend to do the same with the argument he has provided in this round. Definitions of LogicMy opponent begins by saying that he can apply formal or modal logic to scripture or God to lead to faith. He apparently has misunderstood my argument. I am not saying that logic can never lead to faith (although I don't think it can), I'm saying that faith cannot be used as a starting point for logic. This stemmed from my opponent's R1 argument where he basically stated that God gives people faith, therefore it makes sense to have faith in the Bible. This circular reasoning begins with a faith that the Bible is, in fact, true. So while, I agree with my opponent that we cannot a priori rule out faith as the result of logic, we can rule out a priori faith as a solid part of logic. 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. Otherwise it becomes circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.Pro continues to make statements saying that logic can lead to faith and how I've misunderstood the definitions. Again, I am not saying that faith as a result of logic should be ruled out a priori, I'm just saying that faith as the logic itself, i.e. the Bible is true because I have faith the Bible is true, can be ruled out a priori because it leads to circular reasoning. So to answer my opponent's question: I am saying that logical conclusions cannot be rooted in faith.Next, my opponent presents some formal logic leading to an inference in God. While this could lead to faith for some, the logic itself is unsound because not all of the premises have to be true. Several of the premises should be rejected: "A limited thing cannot explain itself," "A limited thing cannot explain itself," and the rest until the end of the proof. Con continues by saying answering my claim that "Faith is not reason," by simply saying "Yes it is." So until my opponent proves that faith is the same as reason and logic, my claim stands.My opponent says "Good. Establish your rebuttal with source and mechanism. I’m still waiting a refutation of the 5thpoint of Calvinism." A rebuttal to his fifth point of Calvinism is unnecessary because his logic connected to that point was invalid. My claim of invalidity was dropped, and therefore conceded. I do not need to refute the 5th point of Calvinism, as I have already dismantled that argument.Next, Pro presents a list of Biblical characters that have been verified. While I will not challenge the existence of these characters, I will challenge him to prove the existence of some very important characters:1. God2. Adam3. Eve4. Noah5. Abraham6. Joseph7. MosesSo in order to conclude that the Bible is a content of fact, the unverifiable must be verified. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Bible is of factual content.My opponent makes the claim that making an inference is the same as assumed premises in logical reasoning. The problem is, however, that if it can be shown that the premises are not correct and are merely rash inferences, then the logic can be deemed unsound and the conclusion can be rejected. So the assumed premises must be more than mere inferences, otherwise I could make the following argument based on my assumptions and inferences: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.This is the kind of faulty logic that arises if we let inferences such as there must be a toothfairy come into logic. Golden RatioWhile I appreciate my opponent's additional evidence for the golden ratio's existence in nature, he has not challenged my argument that his inferences regarding the golden ratio are too broad. Drops count as concessions, therefore, his second round argument falls as unsound.Plantinga's Ontological Argument Here we have more unsound logic. This entire piece of logic revolves around one word: If. "If God is real, then...," "If mankind is equipped..., then....," "If Christianity is true,...." In order for us to accept his logic, then those three things must be true: God being real, mankind being equipped with a sensus divinitatis, and Christianity being true. Of course the logic could be turned around:P1: If God is not real, it is very probable that humans are not granted a "cognitive faculty" that supplements the others, commonly referred to as the "sensus divintatis."P2: If mankind is not equipped with a sensus divintatis, the faith in God is not supernatural and foundational.C: Therefore, If Christianity is not true, Christian belief cannot be justified without independent evidence.My opponent's argument proves nothing, unless we accept that God exists and Christianity is true. So in order for this logic to be accepted, my opponent must prove that God and Christianity are true. Until then, the argument is just as easily turned around to support the atheist cause. Conclusion:All of my opponent's logic that try to justify faith have been shown to be unsound. The first two arguments have been conceded as unsound.Therefore, the resolution is rejected.Your turn, Pro.