In regards to possibilities for the creation of the universe, Deism logically precedes Theism.

I would correct my opponent about the definitions of natural and supernatural. Supernatural: (of something’s cause or existence) not able to be explained by the laws of science. [1] Supernatural doesn't mean outside of the laws of the universe. Supernatural means outside of our current understanding of the lawns of the universe. The plague used to be considered supernatural, but as mankind learned of what it was, it changed from the realm of supernatural, to natural. So, I propose the following definitions as more correct:Natural - Occurring within the laws of nature as we understand them. Supernatural - Occurring outside the laws of nature as we understand them. Now, I will refute my opponent's main point.1 - We have established the need for a cause of the Big Bang. This is fine.2 - For purposes of this debate, we are assuming the cause is supernatural. Mainly, Deist God vs. Theist God. This is fine.3 - This is where my opponent diverges from logic. He claims that a supernatural force creating the universe is Deism. The problem here is an improper definition of Deism. In truth, a Theist God would also be considered a natural force, so both types of Gods would be subsets of 'supernatural force' as shown: Supernatural Forces Theist God Deist God Deism is defined as:the belief in a single god who does not act to influence events, and whose existence has no connection with religions, religious buildings, or religious books, etc. [2]Indeed, the main distinction between Deism and Theism is whether or not God acts to influence events directly. A Deist God created the universe and let it function on its own according to the laws of nature. A Theist God created the universe and directly influences events(such as answering prayers, speaking to his children, performing miracles, etc. .. )What my opponent is attempting to present as his argument is that a God with the characteristic of being an interventionist is predicated upon the idea of a God with the characteristic of being non-interventionist. Here, my opponent erroneously tries to claim that a God would have the 'default' attribute of being non-interventionist, and adding the characteristic of being interventionist is an added step. The reason my opponent presents this argument is because he confuses non-interventionist with the concept of not having the characteristic of being interventionist. Let me clarify. We have a God that created the universe. In its' simplest form, this is some simple force or being, with no characteristics at all. Any time we add a characteristic, we are logically building off of the previous idea of God. So, we have this basic God, and we can then debate whether or not this God would intervene with the course of events in the universe. The progression would look like this: God Interventionist or Non-interventionist Either way, we are attributing a characteristic to this God, being one or the other. We can continue with adding possible characteristics in other areas: God Interventionist or Non-interventionist Physical or Spiritual Being or Force Human or Non-human Either side of a characteristic is just as logically 'basic' as the other. As such, we can clearly see that a Deist God doesn't precede a Theist God, nor vice versa. The concept of God precedes both. I will point out my opponents error once more as it was presented in Point Two:"This is obviously fallacious, as it ignores the crucial step of ascribing the entity or force with the characteristics of a personal god, which would produce theism. It also ignores the fact that an impersonal god is inherently the default position, and as such logically precedes any alternative. "The problem with this argument, is that 'impersonal' is not the default position. Impersonal is the opposite side of the coin from 'personal'. The basic idea of God wouldn't contain either characteristic. Each characteristic would be a possible subset of the base, therefore on the same heirarchal level. [1] - . http://dictionary.cambridge.org...[2] - . http://dictionary.cambridge.org...