Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

I thank Wylted for his arguments. My opponent’s argument via Modal Logic My opponent argues that because his argument is logically valid, not even logically sound (necessarily), that this is a sufficient counter-response. Let us have a look at what these terms mean: Logical validity: an argument is logically valid if it is in principle impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time [1]. Logically sound: is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. [2]. Logical validity pertains to structure, whereas soundness deals with the content. . . . Why being logically valid isn’t enough All my opponent is arguing, is that his argument is structurally okay. But structure is NOT the only component of an argument of a logical argument. The soundness of an argument also counts towards the logic of an argument. Can an argument be logical if it is not sound? No, it cannot. It can only be structurally sound, in regards to logical validity. But no-one will believe an argument if they think it is not logically sound. If I made this argument: 1) All ducks are pink 2) Therefore, my duck is pink This is logically valid, in the sense that if the premise is true, then the conclusion is definitely true. But clearly, this is a logically defunct argument, is it not? I mean, the premise is clearly not true, so there is illogic in reaching that stage. Would anyone classify this as a logical argument? No, because structural validity does not equate to being logical. . . . The missing component: Creator God My opponent then makes an argument, which claims via symbolic logic, that “an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect God exists”. However, notice that there is no mention of a creator god, in this conclusion. In fact, notice how this attribute is left out of the mathematical permutations? Sure, an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect God may exist, but where is this creation aspect? It’s not that my opponent’s argument isn’t logical; it’s that it isn’t relevant to the resolution! One half of the problem is that God is supposed to be a creator (the other being that he is omnipotent). The resolution calls for both, not just one. . . . Why a god cannot be both omnipotent and the creator Let’s have a look at this via Modal Logic: Premise 1: God is the creator Premise 2: God is omnipotent Premise 3: God is both omnipotent and the creator Argument: This has been demonstrated through the creation of everything Conclusion: Therefore, an omnipotent, creator god exists The third premise is internally defunct, as for a god to be omnipotent, that god would have to be without limits. Yet, for a god to be the creator, he would be demonstrating limiting via the creation of everything. Clearly, this is logically unsound, as one of its premises cannot be true. This is, arguably, a logically valid argument, seeing that if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. All my opponent is arguing is that the premises are logically followed by the conclusion. He is NOT arguing any substance in his theory (although he does provide an argument, which I’ve already addressed). . . . Conclusion Structural validity does not mean that an argument is logical. Logical validity is only a component of a logical argument. I argue not that a god of some kind cannot exist, rather, that a specific type of god cannot. On the surface, my opponent’s argument seems reasonable, yet it does not factor one of the most important parts: the creator part; hence, it does not argue in regards to the resolution. . . References/Sources [1] http://rationalwiki.org... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...