It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

Non Cognitivism I am just amazing at Pro's response. It's unlike any that I've seen and is so full of holes. Before I get into that, I need to make an analogy and justification to reference.If I say a computer exists and you ask “what's a computer”, If I define it as“Having tons of information, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, it can talk if you tell it to, a great tool, has solved many problems, it can be bright and sometimes dim.”Can you state you understand what a computer is and does it has meaning? No! We asked what a computer is, not what it can do, likes to do, or has done. When I ask "what's a computer", I'm not asking for secondary characteristics. I want to know what it is itself! To define something is“to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe...” [1]It is also logically explained. The logical law of identity says everything that exists owns the nature of individually (A=A as Pro explained) Everything that exists has something in particular, this makes sure it can do certain things and to posses traits. [2] In order for a term to be meaningful, it must explain its identity, logically.“Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. [2]1. God isn't a word, but a being.First, the argument allows the theist to define “God”. Second, your definitions of God are secondary. Pro now did something that left me speechless. He conceded, then contradicted himself. He said “It is presupposed in this debate that 'God' is a being, not a word”Pro's agreeing with me! A word “god” isn't real! A word is defined as“a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning...” [3]I'm in utter disbelief Pro would say that God has no representation or meaning. I'm in even more disbelief that Pro contradicts himself right after he said this. “We are arguing as to whether or not we should label 'existence' as one of his definitions.”A “definition” is“the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc.,as found in dictionaries.”So Pro wants to say God is not a word, but also wants to argue that existence is a part of the meaning in the word. Furthermore, Please specify what a “being” is. Pro uses the word liberally, yet any research on it will show it's broad. 2. Defining God out of existence?Again, the argument lets the theist define “God”“it’s the thing the word represents that has value. Does not knowing about a word mean it is useless? Far from it.”I agree, but how do you know what that value is without a word? Especially if that value doesn't exist physically. No concept of the value can be given without a description. Otherwise we could claim any amount of meaningless things exist. I understand what you're saying. If a cave man looks at a tree and can't come up with a word to describe it, this doesn't mean a tree doesn't exist. Does the same work with God? No, it would be making a category mistake between physical and non-physical. It would also be ignoring that we now have language and understand the law of identity.If you choose to take this objection the only to prove god is logical to believe in, is to make whatever to is appear to me and all the readers. Same with an infinite amount of meaningless words.3. Subjective?I did justify it, in the beginning of this round. Since Pro accepted the law of identity, I didn't think this would come up. 4.Logical Laws.This is a false analogy. The laws of logic are used to describe material, which gives them meaning. This is an interesting objection, if the laws of logic didn't refer to anything that exists physically, how would we know what they are? 5.JustificationI've shown it has by way of analogy and a law of logic.“Premise 5..dismissed without evidenceSo, do you accept the law of identity? Which states“Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is” [2]Without saying what somethings specific nature is, no characteristics can be valid since they're a part of what it is.Pro then says "'idea' has no attributes”An “idea” is“any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, oractivity.” [4]How exactly is this attribute-less? It clearly says it's a conception.There is no correlation between the properties of a word and the object it represents.What? Please explain, if this true we wouldn't understand anything at all. I could be misunderstanding you, so explain,6. Invalid conclusion Pro says that defining “God” is violating Occam’s razor. Occam's is a non sequiter, I asked pro to define God. Why is Occam's razor (a way of selection theories) brought up? Theories assume facts with meaning. The razor can be brought up when “God” is defined and the selecting process has begun. Pro's objection here also assumes that "God" is meaningful. He says he can't exclude God as a possibility of creation, but what is God? How can Pro state this without giving a primary definition of God? This is section is a complete red herring fallacy . All premises need justification1 has been proven via analogy and logical laws, 2 is proven the same, 4 is proven by 1 and 2, Pro proved 3, 5 is again proved the same way as 1 and 6 follows from 3,4, and 5. Finally 7 is proven by the arguments above and basic logical law of identity! Say that 3 times fast! Furthermore, Pro conceded in saying “God” is not a word. Argument From Correct Choice Pro ignores the argument here and goes off on an irrelevant rabbit trail. The argument is the same, but a shortened version, any one can see that. I'm in disbelief Pro would claim I didn't justify premise 1. Look under premise 1, you will see the justification labeled as “1a, 1b, and 1c” I did this so Pro wouldn't make this mistake. TAGPro starts with a red herring fallacy. Pointing out I copied from a previous debate, like that's somehow wrong. Then Pro commits a strawman fallacy. If he read my previous debate he would know that I said existence doesn't have to mean matter. If existence=matter, then how can God exist if he's not matter. Clearly Pro doesn't think matter=existence, so why would he think so here? If I asked where God came from, Pro would probably state he always existed. Yet I can say the same, some existence could've always existed. Pro ignores my justification for saying LA is conceptual by existence. He also erroneously claims I tried to shift the burden of proof as an excuse to evade. Just read what I said, I was simply asking Pro to affirm his reasoning before I used it against him. No shifting done.OntologicalPro critiqued me for using a different form of the argument. I did this solely because of space, and they seemed essentially the same -see premise 2 on them-. So I hope you can get over it.Pro attempts to say there's differences between a perfect island and God. He said there can always be an island better, yet the same can be said about God. There can always be a better God. I can show him his own objection.Since an Island is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.Above is not possible and therefore its negation is true, The perfect island exists. Pro seems to think an island has subjective definitions, but not God. Pro needs to justify this. Some may think a great being would always stop evil, some may think a great being is one who just leaves the universe alone, some may think a great being is one who causes evil on those who they don't like, ect. Why should we believe God is that which is nothing greater? [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...