Any attempt at arguing for the existence an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

“My opponent's summary is wrong and misleading, making her rebuttal a straw man argument.” “1. and 2. are correct, but 3. is not. It must read "3. Therefore to ATTEMPT an argument is logical, as the person has to attempt to defend against criticism to avoid despair."” This does not address my concern, being that there should be a step before the initial step. Whilst yes, attempting to argue and actually arguing are two different things, making this distinction does not counter my point. The fact is that the initial step is unfounded, that it is illogical to start from an unfounded base. Thus, there is an error in logic before the first step is taken; the 3rd step is not the focus of my criticism. ATTEMPT It is clear that sentences with the word “ATTEMPT” involve a central point in my opponent’s rebuttal. Let’s have a look have a look at why this word could change the debate in my opponent’s favour: "He says that yes, it could very well be that it is illogical to believe in a creator god, yet to argue for one, is certainly logical." Wrong again. Correct would be: "He says that yes, it could very well be that it is illogical to believe in a creator god, yet to ATTEMPT arguing for one is certainly logical." My opponent’s argument here: 1) There is a difference between attempting to argue, and actually arguing. 2) Attempting to argue must always come before arguing 3) Therefore, it is possible that someone could attempt to argue, yet not actually argue However, I’ll put it to you this way: regardless of whether someone actually argues or not, my criticism is still valid in regards to feeling the need to argue. If I argue that, for example, “God exists because the Earth exists”, then I would, to some extent, believe this to be the case, right? If I didn’t think it were at all possible, that such a god couldn’t be proven in that way, I wouldn’t make the argument. Now, if I ATTEMPT to argue such a thing, I would still believe it to some extent. The only difference is moot: that I didn’t voice my argument. It is this certain level of belief that I am criticising; I’m saying that it shouldn’t exist in the first place. Therefore, it should be readily evident that the difference between ATTEMPTing to argue for something, and arguing for something, is irrelevant in regards to what I was criticising. My opponent’s hypothetical case and the arguments extending from it “"Unfounded presupposition ": It is of no consequence how well-executed the attempt is, all I need to do is prove that a single case exists in which initiating the attempt is the logical thing to do. So this is a moot point. You are refuting the logic of the argument, but I am talking about the logic behind starting an attempt at arguing at all.” No, I am refuting the need to argue in the first place. "So as to "avoid despair"": Again, the topic is generalized. It doesn't matter what OTHER things could be taken into consideration, all I need is one logical example, and my exemplary scientist decided to avoid despair from this one perspective.” You generalised the topic, hell, I’m even arguing that it’s generalised. Your example was flawed as it created a false dichotomy wherein there are only single instances of the despair in not believing, and the joy in believing. I counter-argued that there are multiple factors involved, which could result many things dependant on the situation. For example, you could take comfort in believing in a god, yet feel despair by knowingly having to lie to yourself. “"As demonstrated in above paragraphs, it makes no sense to argue for something that has not been considered thoroughly beforehand." The exemplary scientist has been going through a long career of deduction, reaching a dead end in his research … and these things have happened in the past: some scientists turn to religion when their paradigm is shattered. And while that may be illogical, it is NOT illogical to argue in favour of their position henceforth.” It is illogical when the position has not been considered beforehand. Your example has no grounding in reality as the scientist has reached this conclusion based on research reaching a dead-end and his feelings hurting. Besides, it clearly isn’t logical to argue for said god based on emotions. Again, if the position were not so obviously wrong, it would be reasonable to argue for it. My opponent now addresses the specific argument I made against such a god existing “If you believe in a creator god, it's logical to attempt and stand up for your belief. Otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself or be a coward. Neither of which is rewarding as an experience, so it's very logical to attempt defending your belief by means of argumentation against others.” Your argument is circular in that you presuppose the belief is correct. It takes this form: 1) You argue for the existence of a creator god 2) Therefore it’s logical to argue for one 3) You argue for the existence of a creator god because you believe in one 4) Etc… Again, you need to first affirm the first statement; you need to prove why it is reasonable to believe in such a creator god. “"Something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed." And yet complicated things like your exemplary television HAVE been designed…” Yes, complexity can be the result of design. But it makes no sense whatsoever to say that because something is so complex, it had to have been designed (which is the Intelligent Design argument). That was the point of my argument; your counter-argument goes off on a tangent explaining why my example was poor (which I can now admit that it is, yet this does not address the central point of my argument here). “Another problem with your argument: you already assume that nothing has been designed by god because you claim god does not exist. However, if god exists, EVERYTHING has been designed by him already, including the mind of the inventor of the television. So again, your argument is going nowhere.” It’s not that there can’t be a god, it’s that an omnipotent, creator god is a logical contradiction. There could have been a creator, but that creator cannot be omnipotent. “"Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding". For the human mind, maybe…” This is precisely the reason I made this debate. You see, if the human mind is incapable of understanding God’s work, then how can you make the argument for Intelligent Design? How do you know that a god is both the creator and omnipotent, when his work is beyond your mind’s grasp? “"To say that the universe is "finely tuned" is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent". No. "Finely tuned" s just an allusion, a play of words, nothing more. This is hair-splitting beyond the level of semantics you accuse me of employing.” “Finely tuned” is the phrase theists use to prove Intelligent Design. The concept of tuning is contradictory, if you consider that an omnipotent being is doing it. Why would theists use this phrase, if what they meant were something entirely different? Not to mention that you did not properly explain my “hair-splitting” and such. “"Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence." The other way round, this would make sense. While unconscious, one cannot display intelligence. However, anyone can lie in a vigilant coma, unable to demonstrate anything, yet being fully conscious (locked-in syndrome). So this is easily disproved.” The person could demonstrate intelligence via eye movement, thus there is still a way. “"So, god must limit himself and set knowable goals in order to show that he is infinitely-intelligent (or else give us some kind of alternative way of measuring intelligence, of which he has yet to give us)." Where is the need for god to provide us with proof for his existence?” Again, how can you argue for such a god if you cannot prove his existence? I wish to thank The_Scapegoat_bleats for his arguments, and I'll thank you for reading this debate =)