Any attempt at arguing for the existence an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

Whether rightly or wrongly, my opponent has elected to argue semantics. My opponent’s argument can be summarised as such: 1. Someone believes in a creator god 2. Someone argues for a creator god 3. Therefore, the argument is logical, as the person is arguing for something that he/she believes in He says that yes, it could very well be that it is illogical to believe in a creator god, yet to argue for one, is certainly logical. Unfounded presupposition I say that the initial step is presupposed unfoundedly. A logical step would be to affirm the first step, rather than assume that it is correct. It would be far wiser to consider the internal premises that comprise the belief, rather than try and argue for them (and potentially waste people’s time, your effort included). It makes no logical sense whatsoever to enter argumentation, when what you are arguing for has not been considered. So as to “avoid despair” Whilst it would be logical to believe if it were to help avoid a certain state of despair, there are other factors that have to be taken into account. For example, knowing that what you believe in isn’t necessarily true, or even a lie, could lead to despair of a similar kind, perhaps worse. As far as I can tell, this point seems far too moot to debate, as believing something to enter comfort may bring about despair in the short-run/long-run, or to a greater/lesser extent than the comfort generated. In other words, there are simply far too many variables involved with faith to say that ‘believing will help avoid despair’. Where my opponent’s argument would make sense Now, your argument might make sense should it involve something far more moot, such as the validity of a science theory, where external sources might be required as proof. But this isn’t moot. I say that the validity of a creator god’s existence is so fraught with inherent discredit, that a couple of deeply thought ideas with make it plainly obvious that such a god cannot exist, due to the inherent contradiction. Thus, to attempt to argue for a creator god, isn’t logical, as a reasonable step has not taken place beforehand, rendering any argument resulting essentially void of logic, overall. Why my opponent’s objections do not make sense, as demonstrated via semantics ar·gue To put forth reasons for or against; debate To engage in a quarrel; dispute. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons ‘Argue’ has built within it the implication of debate, meaning argumentation between people. As demonstrated in above paragraphs, it makes no sense to argue for something that has not been considered thoroughly beforehand. It also involves arguing something concrete, as opposed to suggesting via questions. For example, “God exists because the Earth exists”, is argumentation, and I am arguing for the position of God existing through putting forth reasons as to why. To ask the question, “Because the Earth exists, does that mean God exists?” is not argumentation, as this does not hold within the implicit requirements of argumentation (i.e. it is not debate). What does this mean? It means that if you were to argue for a creator god, you would have already convinced yourself that one exists, which, I argue, is always ill-founded (if you don’t think so, then address my initial argument). Hence, seeing as what should be the initial step of the logical process (considering the possibility of such a god existing, rather than rushing into arguing for one) has not been met, any attempt at arguing for the existence *of* an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical.