The belief in the existence of a deity is logically valid.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1. Existence is only intelligible. .. My opponent makes the mistake of replacing a word with an easily recognizable definition with a synonym (replacing a word with a "close friend" so to speak). This new premise they have concocted is ridiculous and obscures the meaning of the said premise. The meaning of intelligible is, "capable of being understood" (1). As such this premise is now reworded with its definition, not its synonym. "Existence is only capable of being understood if it has an explanation". In other words, you cannot understand something's existence if there is no explanation of the said objects existence. My opponent has accepted this premise. 2. Two choices (unintelligible or has an explanation) My opponent has agreed. The meaning of unintelligible is incapable of being understood or impossible to be intelligible. You cannot explain something unintelligible. 3. Cannot accept premise 2a by definition of rationality Let us argue that premise 2a is a completely rational choice. Then, here is what is implied: the Universe has no explanation for being in existence. Now let us say this is completely correct, there is no explanation for the Universes' existence. If there is no initial explanation as to why the Universe exists, how can the universe exist without an initial explanation? Rationally, a person cannot accept there being no cause to the universe as without a cause there is no effect. Without an initial cause to the Universe, there is no universe. As we can see, there is a universe. Therefore, 2a must be inherently false only leaving 2b, the Universe has an explanation. 4. A rational person must accept 2b Extend argument 3. 5. 3 types of explanations 6. Universe cannot be explained scientifically "M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified" (2). M-Theory does not state there are other UNIVERSES it explains there are 11 dimensions. These 11 dimensions still exist within one universe. As a dimension is "informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it" (3). M-theory does not explain there are other universes, neither does main-stream string theory. Furthermore, even if there happens to be other universes those universes will not affect our universe. The premise holds true. 7. "The Universes existence is not essential because the universe does not exist necessarily. " My opponent makes my point, what makes it essential for, citing the most prominent theory, the Big Bang to occur? Why is the Universe essential? The simple answer is: it is not. There was no reason for the Big Bang singularity to even exist. A triangle with 4 sides is not a triangle. Furthermore, our Universe is defined as having large scale structures (planets, stars, galaxy's, etc. ) If the Big Bang had occurred in a slightly different way these large scale structures would not exist. Therefore, our Universe would not exist. 8. "A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation. " 9. "No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe. " Conclusion: "A rational person must believe a deity exists. " Extending my previous arguments, I hold the conclusion to be true. TELELOGICAL ARGUMENT 1. "Some things lack intelligence" Agreement. 2. "Things that lack intelligence have a purpose" My opponent provides no basis for their objection. Their personal belief has not been substantiated. I will provide an empirical example. Magma, it flows beneath the earth. I hope my opponent and I can agree magma has no intelligence as it is melted rock (and rocks do not have intelligence). Magma allows for tectonic shifts of the earths plates and all volcanic activity. Things without intelligence have a purpose. 3. "Something which lacks intelligence but, has a purpose must have something with intelligence guiding it" My opponent provided no reason to rewrite this premise. Simply stating something is false does not mean it is. Conclusion: "There must be an intelligent being who oversees the Universe directing all unintelligent things to their purposes. " Therefore, it logically follows; if something is unintelligent it must have something intelligent which designed it to have a purpose and directs it. Something without intelligence cannot have a purpose unless something with intelligence guides it. Something with intelligence guides all without intelligence. Now let's see what happens if we take my opponents rewritten premises to be true: Opponent's rewriting: 1. "Some things lack intelligence" 2. "Things that lack intelligence are given purposes". 3. "Something which lacks intelligence, but has been given a purpose, must have been given it by something intelligent". C. "There must be an intelligent being who oversees the Universe GIVING all unintelligent things to their purposes. " You rewrote the argument. I'll rewrite the conclusion. As you can see logically the conclusion is upheld by the new premises. My opponent has upheld the resolution. Logically, a deity must exist. The resolution holds true. Sources: 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...