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

My rebuttal: My opponent's summary is wrong and misleading, making her rebuttal a straw man argument. 1. and 2. are correct, but 3. is not. It must read "3. Therefore to ATTEMPT an argument is logical, as the person has to attempt to defend against criticism to avoid despair." The topic of this debate clearly states that it is illogical to ATTEMPT argumentation for a specific content. Since argumentation is independent from content (see source provided previously), this would make ANY attempt at argumentation illogical. Yet my opponent proposes an argument, which is a clear contradiction. Furthermore, the initial argument states that ANY attempt at arguing for this certain content is illogical. Which means that only ONE example to the contrary is enough to refute the hypothesis. An ATTEMPT does not include a full-fledged argumentation. Hence we must omit any and all discussion about the logic of the argument that is being attempted. The question at hand is whether it is logical to attempt an argument. ATTEMPTS in and by themselves clearly include the possibility of failure and flaws. Hence, this has to be corrected: "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." Wrong again. Correct would be: "He says that yes, it could very well be that it is illogical to believe in a creator god, yet to ATTEMPT arguing for one is certainly logical." "Unfounded presupposition ": It is of no consequence how well-executed the attempt is, all I need to do is prove that a single case exists in which initiating the attempt is the logical thing to do. So this is a moot point. You are refuting the logic of the argument, but I am talking about the logic behind starting an attempt at arguing at all. "So as to "avoid despair"": Again, the topic is generalized. It doesn't matter what OTHER things could be taken into consideration, all I need is one logical example, and my exemplary scientist decided to avoid despair from this one perspective. The exemplary person does not require to be omniscient, nor unbiased. His limited point of view, which is true for many REAL scientist as recorded by Thomas S. Kuhn, leads him to believe that faith will keep him from despair. It is what many people have stated throughout history: faith gives people hope and strength. Only an atheist would argue to the contrary, but that would be impossible, as an atheist would not even attempt arguing for the existence of a creator god. "Where my opponent"s argument would make sense": Again, this goes against the validity of the argument, which is not the topic at hand. A person with the premise I depicted will still believe in god and argue in his favour, which is a logical thing to do, as arguing AGAINST something you believe would be illogical. By elimination alone, it must be logical to argue in favour of god if you believe. Believers exist. It is logical they argue in favour of this. "As demonstrated in above paragraphs, it makes no sense to argue for something that has not been considered thoroughly beforehand." The exemplary scientist has been going through a long career of deduction, reaching a dead end in his research. My example clearly states that he has put considerable amounts of consideration into the matter. He just reached a conclusion different from yours. Flawed or not, that is his premise, and these things have happened in the past: some scientists turn to religion when their paradigm is shattered. And while that may be illogical, it is NOT illogical to argue in favour of their position henceforth. In this case, they do not even need valid arguments. All they need to do is ATTEMPT arguing, as proposed by my opponent. Until your very last paragraph, you neglect the "attempting" part you YOURSELF brought up. You are trying to divert the attention of the audience to your straw man-argumentation, going against a position I do not hold. Again: You wanted to discuss whether it's logical to attempt arguing for a creator god. The answer to that is obviously: sometimes, yes. If you believe in a creator god, it's logical to attempt and stand up for your belief. Otherwise you'd be contradicting yourself or be a coward. Neither of which is rewarding as an experience, so it's very logical to attempt defending your belief by means of argumentation against others. To do you a favour, I will now pretend you had actually not asked about "attempting" and refute the content of your arguments. Your premise is accepted for argument's sake. "Something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed." And yet complicated things like your exemplary television HAVE been designed. You make it sound like complexity cannot be the result of design, but that is a contradiction. It makes total sense to say the television is so complex it had to be designed, because it's true. There is not comparable object with the same functionality that has NOT been designed. Your argument would only be true if there were televisions growing in the wild. So all this proves is that complexity and design are not the same thing, they can coexist or not. A rock would be considered "not very complex" and can be found in the wild OR be synthesized. Another problem with your argument: you already assume that nothing has been designed by god because you claim god does not exist. However, if god exists, EVERYTHING has been designed by him already, including the mind of the inventor of the television. So again, your argument is going nowhere. "Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding". For the human mind, maybe. But this presumes that no higher intellect than yours or other humans exist. For example: A child might just put a Christmas tree on top of a car, pull a little and shake his head about father tying the tree tight. "Why're you doing it so complicated? I checked, it's tight!" The child lacks deeper understanding. Who's to say we know all about necessary complexity? "To say that the universe is "finely tuned" is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent". No. "Finely tuned" s just an allusion, a play of words, nothing more. This is hair-splitting beyond the level of semantics you accuse me of employing. "Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence." The other way round, this would make sense. While unconscious, one cannot display intelligence. However, anyone can lie in a vigilant coma, unable to demonstrate anything, yet being fully conscious (locked-in syndrome). So this is easily disproved. "It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time." Since we have no evidence on this: pure conjecture. "When no limits are available and no goals are known, unintelligent actions are indistinguishable from intelligent ones." This may be true for the human mind. WE cannot distinguish, but we are most certainly not infinitely intelligent. So this is another assumption based on the idea that human intelligence is the ultimate level of intelligence. An all-intelligent entity might see a difference between the two. Your argumentation falls apart if we accept the human mind as limited and flawed. "So, god must limit himself and set knowable goals in order to show that he is infinitely-intelligent (or else give us some kind of alternative way of measuring intelligence, of which he has yet to give us)." Where is the need for god to provide us with proof for his existence? Merriam-Webster lists: belief: "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof" If god wants humans to believe in him, he will certainly not provide proof. You cannot assume to know god's motivations if he's more intelligent than you. Conjecture, thus. Conclusion: None of your arguments gives any new insights, it's all conjecture based off the idea that humans know more than any other being. Even Socrates denied that. Your argumentation is flawed throughout.