It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

Con concedes his case as he failed to defend his arguments. This leaves my arguments on the board. I have duly noted Con's difficulty in grasping the definition of God. In relation to the this, we know that a being that exists in reality is greater than one that doesn't. This is justified when comparing a being that has nessecary existence vs. a being that has possible/contingent existence. God is the former, He has nessecary existence, this doesn't mean that he exists however, it simply means that if he exists, he exists in both the mind, and in reality.Defence of the Ontological argument: It should be noted that God's definition is not allowed to be changed without 2 party consent, so Pro is not allowed to relabel God as being the greatest thing imaginable. What struck me as amusing in Con's round is that he altered Gaunilos island critisism of the model ontological argument by replacing the definition instead of the subject. This is most humorous as it seeks to disprove the new definition of God instead of the old one. I support the old definition. God is the greatest possible being, not greatest thing immaginable. Human minds do not change anything in reality, this rebuttal is defunct.To further illustrate the failure of Gaunilos island, it can be refuted thus:1. Gaunilo's island is the greatest possible island2. There still exists an island greater, an island which is not physically restricted to being an island.3. Such a thing would be conscious and have a person. 4. Such a being would be tri-omni and not confined to reality at all.5. Such a transcendent being would fit the definition of God.6. Gaunilo's island is actually just God. Changing the definition of God doesn't actually acheive anything, it simply means you are arguing against a different definition. So why is Con's definition wrong? To visualise, imagine there are an infinite amount of possible worlds all with different characteristics. If God exists in one but not the other, then he is not a nessecarily existing God. He would therefore have possible existence. But the God I am trying to prove has nessecary existence and either exists in all possible worlds including reality, or none at all. The definition does not allow God to exist in some worlds but not others, as that would not be the greatest possible being.Defence of the TAG argument for God:Summarising the TAG argument, which explanation best accounts for the existence of logical absolutes? I have established that they exist wether the universe exists or not, so how does something transcendent exist? Its existence does not account for its own existence, that would be circular reasoning. We need something else to account for its existence, and that is God.In his post, Con claims that there is only one logical absolute: 'You can't be 100% of anything.' This statement is invalid as it is self-defeating. Is it possible for Con to be 100% sure that you cannot be 100% sure of anything? If Con is correct, then he is wrong. Statements like: this statement is false, are definiately not logical absolutes as they do not even have a truth value. Logical absolutes are laws that are true in any circumstance. Contradictions do not exist is one of them. 2 things that negate each other cannot be true at the same time:a) My name is Benjamin Smithb) My name is not Benjamin SmithEither a is true, or b is. Both of them are not true simutaneously. Such logical absolutes like this exist, as I have demonstrated in round 2. Other logical absolutes that exist are the other 2 laws of mind that allow rational discourse. The law of identity and the law of the excluded middle, which I explained in the previous round.As a premptive rebuttal, I am going to assume that my opponent will claim that logical laws are contingent on human minds. This is demonstratable false. Does a triangle with 3 sides gain the ability to become a 3 sided shape with 1 side as soon as all humans are gone? No, nothing changes. Contradictions like these will still not exist regardless of our existence. I had also mentioned this in round 2.In defence of the laws of mind, I would remind Con that he is attempting to discredit solid logical laws and will ultimately fail.1) The law of identity Cons argument against this law is that sometimes we cannot tell wether something is what it isn't. Con's example was dreams, you cannot tell that you are dreaming while you are dreaming (unless it is a lucid dream). The problem with this argument is that it changes nothing. A dream is not reality regardless of wether you cannot tell the difference or not. Perception has got no say whatsoever in wether something is something else. Con brings up a counter-argument which is entirely unjustified evidentially. In a nutshell, his claim is that what we perceive might not be true, and thus the laws of logic that we percieve as true might not be true. In this case, the BoP is on Con to establish that what we see is not true. There must be a reason why what we percieve is actually different to what reality is, so Con must prove that we do not percieve reality in order for this argument to have minimal effect. Understand now Con that it is not possible to establish this claim. But good luck trying.His other attack on the law of identity is that it is contingent on reality existing. However, this too is demonstratably false. God is God, and not something else. God does not physically exist, and thus this objection is false.This was the only law of mind he attacked. The rest stand as clear proof that logical absolutes independent of the universe exist, and give more credit to a similarily transcendent author.Since this is round 3, and I have characters to spare, I will introduce the Kalam Cosmological argument for God's existence.Kalam Cosmological argumentP1: Whatever has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existenceP2: The universe has a beginning of its existenceP3: The universe has a cause of its existenceP4: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, eternal, and infinitely powerful in order to exist and create the universeC: This first cause is God.P1 JustificationThis is intuitively obvious. and is not one of the premises that I would expect to be contested. Since we do not and beyond reasonable doubt will not ever see material objects randomly pop into existence, Con will have a BoP to claim otherwise. Osama bin Laden was not killed by a falling piano that materialised in the sky above him.P2 JustificationUsing this reasoning, we can also safely assume that like any material object, the universe did not spontaneously pop into existence, it was caused by something as per the law of causality. P3+4 JustificationsThe cause of the universe couldn't have been physical, since we are talking about the start of everything physical. Since It came before time, this cause is also timeless. A being transcendent, timeless, immaterial, powerful and knowledgeable enough to create the universe is what we will refer in this debate as 'God.'If all premises are true, the conclusion that God created the universe follows necessarily.My thoughts on this debate currently:I dont really care if Con focusses all his effort on attempting to refute a single argument, all I need to do is let one slip throught the gap and the debate is mine. At the moment I have all 3 argument currently suceeding. First we saw Con drop all his arguments, then give more attention to the TAG than the ontological. Playing this 3rd argument in the middle of the debate should cause a headache for Con's already unstable position. I'm curious to see what he will have to say about the Kalam Cosmological argument, but I think I have a rough idea that the ontological argument rebuttal will simply be a roundabout series of conjectures and ideas to try and slip through the net. The TAG argument in my opinion is beyong hope for Con, he attempted to attack a single logical absolute I put forth, but I only need at least 1 of the three to win that argument.