It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

I assume Con has accepted all given definitions. as we go on, God may require additional definitions, I do not mind if Con adds some to clarify his case, however, all definitions (of the theistic Christian God) must be reasonable and clear. I shall be using the following arguments for a justification of belief in God in this debate: 1) Transcendental argument for God 2) Ontological argument for God 3) Kalam Cosmological argument 4) Pascal's wager 1) Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) P1: Logical absolutes exist P2: Logical absolutes and laws transcend physical matter and entities P3: Transcendental Logical laws should not be able to exist without a similarly transcendent author. C: This author is God. P1 Justification Logical absolute are the basics of logic, principles that are always true.[1] For example, the 3 classic laws of thought: The law of identity[2], The law of excluded middle[3] and The law of Non-contradiction.[4] These established laws of logic required to perform rational discourse have objective existence, they are true for everyone. This is because they deal with both conceptual logic and reality, things our minds cannot alter or change. To defend the law of identity as a transcendent law which I will be doing next point as well, The law of identity which states that A=A does not require matter or anything physical to exist as it also deals with conceptual thought. Like all of the laws, reality is subject to these laws but the mind is as well. An idea of a frog is not the same as an idea of a deer. Likewise the law of excluded middle is not the same as the law of negation as failure. P2 Justification Logical absolutes do not require the existence of humans to exist. The sun would not both exist and not exist regardless if we were here or not. Similarly, they do not need matter to exist. If we destroyed half the universe, logic would not change or be altered, If matter didn't exist at all, logical absolutes would still be unchanged. Also, If I were to go forwards or backwards in time, I would notice that logical absolutes stay the same, likewise if I travelled 20 light-years away logic would not be different. The fact that it is not reliant on matter and energy to exist, and is not physical, thus cannot be observed via scientific instruments. Logical absolutes are transcendental. I do not claim that all logical laws are not contingent on matter existing, since many logical laws deal with what nature must be like (fractal geometry etc). However the premise claims that there exist laws tha transcend the universe and must therefore be accounted for. If God didn't exist, we would have no reason to conclude that a transcendental law could exist. There is no reason for it being possible, and thus a transcendental mind that conceived these laws must exist. P3 Justification There is no possible answer for the existence of logical absolutes with the exception that a higher mind conceptualised it. The existence of the universe cannot explain the existence of something purely conceptual that doesn't require the universe to exist in order to exist. So we can rationally conclude that these laws were conceived and put in place by super-intelligence, as all thoughts conceptual need to be explained for their existence. A Similar Argument that justifies this premise is that thoughts reflect the mind. If the concepts were faulty or irrational, they would originate from an irrational mind, if they were rational, then vice versa. The conceptual logical laws that exist are transcendent, absolute and perfectly consistent. Therefore they reflect a perfect, transcendent mind.[5] The Conclusion necessarily follows if all premises are true. There exists a transcendental mind that exists independent of the universe. 2) Ontological argument: Model ontological argument: [6] 1) God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being. 2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world. 3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality. 4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality. 5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality. 6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God. 7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible. C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists. In a nutshell, If God exists, He exists necessarily. It is possible that God exists, hence He exists. I have included a similar version of the model ontological argument in logical symbolism for easy reading: [7] 3) Kalam Cosmological argument P1: Whatever has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence P3: The universe has a cause of its existence P4: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, eternal, and infinitely powerful in order to exist and create the universe C: This first cause is God. P1 Justification This 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 Justification Using 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 Justifications The 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. Pascal's wager Pascal's wager shows that it is infinitely better to wager that God exists vs that He doesn't exist.[8] Theism: 1) If God exists, belief in Him would result in a small chance to gain an infinite reward. 2) If God doesn't exist, belief in Him would result in little or no finite loss. Atheism: 3) If God exists, non belief in Him would result in a near certain chance to gain an infinite punishment. 4) If God doesn't exist, non belief in Him would result in little or no finite gain. 5) a small chance at an infinite reward is better than a near certain chance at infinite punishment. 6) It is illogical to choose a chance at infinite punishment over infinite gain. 7) It is logical to believe God exists. Conclusion: I have shown why it is in accordance with logic to suppose that there is a God. The Trancendental argument for God, the model ontological argument, the Kalam cosmological argument and Pascal's wager. Sources: [1] http://carm.org... [2] http://www.classicallibrary.org... [3] Frist Staal (1988), Universals: Studies in Indian Logic and Linguistics, Chicago, pp. 109–28 (cf, Bull, Malcolm (1999), Seeing Things Hidden, Verso, p. 53 [4] Dasgupta, Surendranath (1991), A History of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, p. 110 [5] see source [1] [6] http://www.angelfire.com...[7] http://debate.org...[8] http://www.peterkreeft.com...