Can't rationally argue for theism

Thank you for such a wonderful debate. Let me set the grounds for this debate Definition of rational by merriam webster - 1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable Definition of reason by merriam webster - 1 a: a statement offered in explanation or justification 1b: a rational ground or motive 1c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense ; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact 1d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible Definition of theism by merriam webster - : belief in the existence of a god or gods ; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world Ok. Now, as far as I know it, your basically saying that there's no logic behind theism. Let's stop right here. To me, it's called making inferences. I'm only supporting the concept of theism, not any specific religion, since such is all that is necessary to win this debate. Anyway, things that have purpose imply design. Like computers. Plato and Aristotle argued that complex things imply design. The statement 'Our bodies are so purposeful and well shaped, its like they were built.' didn't sound reasonable to you? It's not like an 'I'm right your wrong' argument. It makes sense. As for: "Note that even if a theist was somehow able to demonstrate conclusive evidence that this designer/starter god is a personal god which cares about human affairs, answers prayers, and interferes in the natural course of the world, in the form of miracles, all his work would still be ahead of him in showing that his specific religion is correct since: - All the religions that exist or that have existed in the past make claims about personal gods and miracles. - These religions are incompatible, so they can't all be true." I'm only arguing theism itself, a creator, not a prayer answerer. Your argument right here is nullified. "Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ancient eye witnesses, hearsay, or people just being certain of something to be true are just not good enough to be considered evidence, not to mention extraordinary evidence." I didn't say it was "One way to validate our worldview is to verify it for coherency. For example if I catch my wife cheating on me I can't continue to claim that she is faithful to me because that would be incoherent. So the worldview of someone that claims that the historical data that exists in the form of the gospel is enough to substantiate extraordinary evidence for Christianity must also agree that the data that exists about UFOs, Big foot, Vampires and Sathya Sai Baba are more than sufficient as well, otherwise he is being inconsistent, like a cheating faithful wife." Gospel? What gospel? Christians? I'm not arguing Christianity, I'm arguing theism. In this debate, I don't care if there's one God or a trillion, I'm just arguing theism. Look, theism is a result of rational human thinking. You know what would be funny: If we created evolving robots and sent them to a distant planet. At first, they think they were created by some gods (ie. us) because they're so complex. Then, along come atheists, who believe however we made them is what happened, only it happened naturally and there is no evidence to support theist beliefs. What's funny is that they both are thinking rationally. Yet, look who's wrong. Now, I'm not arguing that atheists are even wrong, I'm just arguing that theism makes sense and is rational.