Deism is the only reasonable belief system that includes a god

Thanks, Pro. No need to apologize, as it is all part of the debate. First of all, I would like to address the issues of sources. Bible Gateway is simply a search engine for the Bible, and should have no bias whatsoever because I am directly quoting the Bible. I understand that there are other websites for the Bible as well, but this one suited my needs nicely. Also, I did not use the blog at all in my arguments and having a blog on the website does not destroy its credibility. CNN is a reliable news network, but its website has a blog. You even cited a blog for The Telegraph in one of your sources. . http://edition.cnn.com...And while you criticize me for using a website with a blog that I did not reference, most of your websites are blogs with avery heavy bias. Biblicalnonsence. com? Answers in Genesis Busted? How are these websites in any way reliable? I'll now address the rebuttals. Yes, these religious texts are written by humans. God didn't physically write the Bible himself. However, the people who wrote it were prophets, apostles, and other people close to God and Jesus who heard what they said. They are the most reliable people to write the Bible and certainly wouldn't say anything that God himself didn't say. The Bible itself says this on the matter in 2 Timothy 3:16-17All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. . http://www.biblegateway.com...And though you state that deists are merely trying to prove God's existence, the tenets of this belief system are inherently questioning God. Deists reject holy scriptures and revelations and instead rely on their own reason. However, since holy scriptures are considered the word of God, they must also be rejecting certain aspects of God they deem to be impossible. Why might a deist do this? They question God's omnipotence and do not believe that God has the power to perform these miracles. When I stated that human reason is flawed, I am not implying that our reasoning is on the verge of insanity. Humans do of course have a degree of reasoning and hence why we are able to have this debate. I am instead questioning the extent of this reasoning by stating that it is not perfect. This is clearly true because humans do make mistakes and errors in judgement. Yet somehow they are able to reason something so complex as God? This is like saying humans are able to do differential calculus without being able to add. My argument for Descartes was similar to your argument against religious text. I was simply finding fault in one of the greatest and most influential philosophers for deism, just how you were attacking parts of the Bible and Quran. I will say this, however. Neither one is a definitive argument against either religion. Even if all the religious texts had some error in them, this would not necessarily disprove theism. It is possible that all of those gods do not truly exist and there instead is another god that is the right one. Likewise, I could find fault in almost every philosopher of deism. To disprove even some of the other major philosophers would go well beyond the extent and character space of this debate. Your argument against these miracles is that it is scientifically possible that they could have happened without God's intervention. First of all, pretty much all the websites in that paragraph are grossly biased or unreliable. Perhaps it is possible that the parting of the Red Sea could of occurred by a strong wind at that location. However, what are the odds that a wind of that caliber would occur at that spot allowing for the Israelites to cross safely but then for the Egyptians to get crushed? Conclusion:Theism is simply the most logical and reasonable belief system that we know of. I will summarize it as "Believe what God tells you" and it should be self-evident that God would want you to believe in what he says. In case my words may be misinterpreted, I am not supporting fundamentalist groups killing others because "God told them to". Rather, I am saying that we should accept what the religious text says and this should be enough "proof" of God (assuming that you are a follower of that religion to begin with). Deism falls short of giving us a definitive proof of God and relies on the flawed institution of human reason to explain the most complex entity in the universe. My opponent has had to focus on attacking religious texts instead of theism itself, using unreliable websites in the process of doing so.