It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

Deconstruction of the Negative Case1. The blind watchmaker argumentThe argument that Con employs is not so much of an argument as it is a rebuttal of a theistic argument. Since it doesn't negate the resolution in any way, and I am not going to use the argument already addressed, I will label this as irrelevant to the debate.2. The Problem of evil, destruction and decayI'm having to rewrite my opponents arguments in a more readable format, but from what I gather, Con seems to be claiming that the universe shouldn't be in such a sorry state, going ontowards doom and decay, with so much undesirable things out there for us.The problem with this argument is that it presupposes what should be true. It assumes that a perfect universe should be the one we live in, and for no other reason than cultural expectation. Christians believe that the universe started perfect, then entered decay when sin entered, to each his own theory. Con however uses his personal idea as evidence that every other idea is illogical. Unless evidence can be provided that the universe should be perfect right now, and if Con can establish that we should be living in a perfect world, then this point is invalid.3. Unlikelyhood of an afterlife.The attack on the possibility of an afterlife is not an attack on believing in God. There is no requirement for a certain religion to be true. In this debate, I support the theistic position of God's existence, if Con wants to debate Christianity, he can challenge me to another debate. This point is irrelevant as well.4. God's existence cannot be proven.We shall see...5. ? People are greater than God?I honestly am not sure what Con is arguing in his point 5, but from what I see, man has accomplished more than God assuming he exists. Just to point out the obvious, assuming the God that Con speaks of exists, then He has acheieved the following: Created an entire universe from absolutely nothing Conceptualised logical laws allowing rational discourse Designed extremely complex self-sustaining systems and ecosystems Created humans, with sentience, souls, minds and morals I have yet to see any human challenge God in anything. When humans have challenged God, it usually ends in tears. The atheistic driven Marxist regimes across 25 countries affecting 1.5 billion people have been responsible for the unnatural or violent deaths of some 125 million people.[1] This is why I usually get annoyed at athiests who blame religion for the horrifying, apocolytical crusades of 1 millenia ago. (The way I hear it, the world must have been close to utter ruin and human extinction, with hinduism, taoism, and other modernage christian religions sharing equal blame). Comparing 1 million deaths[2], (less than 1% of the populace) with 215 million (an ever-so-slighlty higher number) we should be able to see the pure destruction caused by atheism and the result of trying to fight religions. Notable atheistic driven campaigns was the Soviet communistic state, who executed 10 million people and the cambodian version of it, which saw 1 in every 5 man, woman and child in the country terminated. Argument 1: Ontological argument for God (modified)[3]1) God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.Argument 2: The Transcendental argument for God:P1: Logical absolutes existP2: Logical absolutes and laws transcend physical matter and entitiesP3: Transcendental Logical laws should not be able to exist without a similarly transcendent author.C: This author is God.P1 JustificationLogical absolute are the basics of logic, principles that are always true.[4] For example, the 3 classic laws of thought: The law of identity[5], The law of excluded middle[6] and The law of Non-contradiction.[7] These established laws of logic required to perform rational discourse have objective existence, they are true for everyone. This is because they deal with both conceptual logic and reality, things our minds cannot alter or change. To defend the law of identity as a transcendent law which I will be doing next point as well, The law of identity which states that A=A does not require matter or anything physical to exist as it also deals with conceptual thought. Like all of the laws, reality is subject to these laws but the mind is as well. An idea of a frog is not the same as an idea of a deer. Likewise the law of excluded middle is not the same as the law of negation as failure. P2 JustificationLogical absolutes do not require the existence of humans to exist. The sun would not both exist and not exist regardless if we were here or not. Similarly, they do not need matter to exist. If we destroyed half the universe, logic would not change or be altered, If matter didn't exist at all, logical absolutes would still be unchanged. Also, If I were to go forwards or backwards in time, I would notice that logical absolutes stay the same, likewise if I travelled 20 light-years away logic would not be different. The fact that it is not reliant on matter and energy to exist, and is not physical, thus cannot be observed via scientific instruments. Logical absolutes are transcendental. I do not claim that all logical laws are not contingent on matter existing, since many logical laws deal with what nature must be like (fractal geometry etc). However the premise claims that there exist laws tha transcend the universe and must therefore be accounted for. If God didn't exist, we would have no reason to conclude that a transcendental law could exist. There is no reason for it being possible, and thus a transcendental mind that conceived these laws must exist.P3 JustificationThere is no possible answer for the existence of logical absolutes with the exception that a higher mind conceptualised it. The existence of the universe cannot explain the existence of something purely conceptual that doesn't require the universe to exist in order to exist. So we can rationally conclude that these laws were conceived and put in place by super-intelligence, as all thoughts conceptual need to be explained for their existence. A Similar Argument that justifies this premise is that thoughts reflect the mind. If the concepts were faulty or irrational, they would originate from an irrational mind, if they were rational, then vice versa. The conceptual logical laws that exist are transcendent, absolute and perfectly consistent. Therefore they reflect a perfect, transcendent mind.[8]The Conclusion necessarily follows if all premises are true. There exists a transcendental mind that exists independent of the universe.Sources:[1]Johnson, modern times, p.788. [2]John Shertzer Hittell, "A Brief History of Culture" (1874) p.137 [3]http://www.angelfire.com...[4]http://carm.org...[5]http://www.classicallibrary.org...[6]Frist Staal (1988), Universals: Studies in Indian Logic and Linguistics, Chicago, pp. 109–28 (cf, Bull, Malcolm (1999),Seeing Things Hidden, Verso, p. 53[7]Dasgupta, Surendranath (1991), A History of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, p. 110 [8]see source 1