Belief in the existence of God is Justified.

But not to waste time I would like to move quickly onto my arguments. What is this debate to be about? Well in the premise you stipulated not only the burdens you beloved me to have to carry but also that the existence of god should be "justified by good reasoning. " You then preformed an analysis on logic, your deduced origin of logic and how you feel that this proves your point. I have a number of issues with these stamens which I will address and reference throughout my substantive. Firstly however the burdens, To win this debate all I have to do is point out the flaws in your logic and to prove that logically -as that is the premise of your debate- there is no evidence of God. Logic. You have asserted without real annalisis that logic is outside of the human mind that it is somthing only attainable from god. This does not make sense under your loose definition of logic. Logic is the method by which we assess the outside world and predict the actions and reactions that will occur if we do certain things it is not an exclusively human ideal. It is the root of most of the life on earth's reason for surviving. If you are unable to recognise danger, food, and other necessities of life you are unable to survive and procreate. Therefore only those being which use logic or some basal form of reasoning will survive. As the animal becomes more advanced there social and logical codes become more nuanced and it is these subtle nuances which have led you astray, for we are animals and we are not that special. We are not born with a fully formed logical brain in the simplest of examples is that the first caveman who had fire burnt himself and then didn't do it again because of the memory of the pain of fire. When we are born we do not have these innate logical ideals, no new born can play chess. Where as if logic is a gift from god we should be born with some if not all the capacity? So from this we have a better and clearer understanding of logic, not a dictionary definition but a real practical definition. Logic is the method by which to some extent most life on earth observes and makes decisions based upon previous observations. This not only clashes with your belief that there is no root to logic but in also brings up a major problem with a debate based on one "infallible point" just like Rene De Carts your faith placed on one idea has led you to wrongfully askew assertions. "Justified by good reasoning. " Now we move onto the meat of the problem and this is the "good Reasoning" which is completely ignored in your speech. What is this good reasoning? As has been stipulated Logic is the bases of your argument, Logic requires evidence. There is no evidence. Religion as a whole is based around the idea of belief. You cannot have a religion with proof. They don't exist they go against the fundamentals of religion. If there is no leap of faith then what is religion? It is not something you prove and for this reason the debate on your side was lost from the start. If however we ignore this and just look to the possibility that you are just justifying the belief in religion under other premise we come to the unfortunate multiple religion problem the huge number and diversity of faiths which have a rainbow of different moral and ideological ideals upheld within them, not only pulls us away from justify one religion but further attacks your idea that God is the origin of logic if he was why then are there such a diverse medley of religions with such divergent morals two men cannot walk the same road in the same direction and get to different places? These two reasons are why not only is your definition of logic shoe-string at best but also how an initially compelling case is actually self destroying and that is why logic and reason fall against God.