It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

Argument 1: Non CognitivismThe Argument from Non Cognitivism is formed like this, [1]1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:A. Primary Attributes: A fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existant's primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified [2]B. Secondary Attributes: Secondary Attributes: the character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise. [3]C. Relational Attributes.: An association of the character. I.E. King Henry the VIII. King is the relational attribute.2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant"s A in order to be considered meaningful.3. The term "God" lacks a positively identified A.4. Because of this, the term "God" holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.6. Therefore, the term "God" is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.A meaningless word can't have any proper concept. It would just be a meaningless sound coming out of our mouths. Until "God" is defined all arguments are proving nothing.If someone said "A "Plorp" exists" we would need to ask what a "Plorp" is. Without a clear definition of a "plorp" any concept of it is invalid.Argument 2: Argument From Correct ChoiceThis argument shows that choosing a theistic worldview is contradictory. In order to state you believe in God, a criteria of “correct choice” must exist. It is formed like so (with a little modifying done by me) [4]1. Materialist apologetics is true, principles and absolutes are impossible to justify from the theological worldview.1a. Theism implies divine causation is true.1b. If divine causation is true, then all facts in the universe are contingent.1c. All facts in the universe is contingent to God’s act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary. No principles or absolutes are possible (since the uniformity of reality is no longer necessary). 2. Any conscious choice implies a principle of correctness.3. Choosing the theistic worldview is a choice, and therefore implies a principle of correctness. (from 2)C. Choosing the theistic worldview is self-contradictory. Atheism is the only consistent worldview. (from 1 and 3) Pro's arguments TAG See my argument 2. As it's kind of like an atheist TAG The laws of logic are not contingent on our minds. They're contingent on existence itself, these laws are descriptions of this existence, and conceptual by nature. I will edit a bit from Matt Slick to show how"Existence's attributes are consistent with the first Law of logic, the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is: A = A. Since existence exists (Existence = Existence), then its attributes, which are dependent and necessarily a part of existence, also exist. It must also be unchanging, as if existence changed, it would be non existence. By way of analogy, I am six feet tall. My height (or whatever height I might be) is an attribute of my existence as a full grown man, and it cannot be separated from what I am. Of course height can be altered, but "height" cannot be removed from my physical existence. It is a part of my existence." [5]Two questions. If God didn't exist, the logical absolutes wouldn't exist, right? If God didn't exist, nothing would exist, right? Let’s say God doesn’t exist. Since God didn’t exist, the logical laws didn’t exist. If God did not exist would it be valid to say nothing could both exist and not exist? Could this nothing then fade into something, which the logical absolutes would arrive? So according to your own logic, God can not exist and the absolutes can come about, or the absolutes exist regardless of any type of deity. (note here, this is not what I'm proposing.) Ontological Argument The ontological argument can prove anything if its reasoning is validGaunilo's island The perfect Island is that than which no greater can be conceived. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea. If the Perfect Island does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater island, id est one that does exist. Therefore, the perfect Island exists in reality. Hercules refutation Hercules is the greatest warrior in history. A warrior that existed is greater than one that did not. If Hercules only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater warrior Therefore, Hercules existed that something might have been greater than it is. I can conceive of a more powerful being that can eliminate the former ad infinitum. Furthermore if God is suppose to be the greatest thing that can be conceived. Yet 2 Gods would be better than 1 and 3 God better than 2 ad infinitum.The Ontological argument can be defended, because "God" is a meaningless word. It works with any meaningless word1. An "Orgh" is that than which no greater can be conceived.2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.3. If the "Orgh" does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater thing exists or can be thought of.4. Therefore, the "Orgh" exists in reality.Pro needs to give "God" a meaning before we can discuss any arguments whatsoever, but specifically with the ontological argument. Kalam Even though the Kalam is invalid, I don’t really care, the argument is irrelevant unless it proves the cause was God. That’s what Pro tries to prove in premise 4. Without premise 4, the cause could just be some type of natural cause. The burden of proof is on Pro to prove it was God. So, let's look at the properties immaterial, not physical This assumes the only matter that existed ever is in our universe, however we’re unsure what was before the universe [6] -other than time via the laws of relativity-. So “immaterial” isn’t justified. powerful Would you claim the cause of a castle needs to have immense power? No, we know some castles that were built by one person [7]. It needs very little power if it’s done little by little. So there’s no reason to assume the cause has immense power. Timeless. Why would time be a prerequisite for something to exist? Since God has this property, yet Pro believes he exists. So why not something else other than God? Transcendent What do you mean by transcendent? It simply means “going beyond ordinary limits” [8]. At one time the cause of the rain was “transcendent” since our ordinary senses didn't go beyond it. When more about the universe is known, the cause would become a part of our senses and therefore not transcendent. Knowledgeable There's no reason to assume this. We don't assume a cause to usually have knowledge of what it's doing. Such as the cause of the rain. It's clear, there's no reason to assume this cause is a god. Pascal's wager This wager is argumentum ad baculum fallacy. [9] It's also a false dichotomy. There's no dichotomy between Christianity and Atheism. There's many religions in the world, in which both I, Pro, and all the readers are going to hell. We need to base our decisions on evidence, not on wagers like these. The argument should be dropped, if the evidence points to a flying spaghetti monster not existing, we shouldn't believe in it because of a wager like this. The argument can also be reversed in favor of atheism [10] Sources in comments.