Belief in the Christian god is logical.

It seems I have overestimated my opponent. I did not respond directly to each and every single one of my opponent's points because it was unnecessary. Each and every single one of my opponent's points assumed that I was arguing that the conclusion for the existence of the Christian god was sound/valid (logical). In short, my opponent's second round posts in their entirety was a field full of straw-man fallacies. My argument is not for the subject of the belief, but the belief itself. To give a nice, simple example, I will respond to the Santa example: Yes. Belief in Santa is logical. Why? Small children are often taught about Santa Claus. They are at a lack of critical information. They are at an age where fantasy is a dominant form of grasping the world. Thus, belief in Santa is logical. *********** My opponent sets up some criteria. I'll respond to that. "1. My opponent completely dropped my definitions, "Logical- According to or agreeing with the principles of logic. Logic- Of reason or sound judgment. " He thereby concedes them to me and until he can prove his logic somehow follows reason or sound judgment he has lost." I haven't dropped them at all. I just applied them to a different argument. It is reasonable that small children believe in Santa. Similarly, the acceptance of a Christian god by certain people is also logical. There are bound to be people who blindly accept what they are told, there are bound to be people who accept the Christian god unquestioningly. It would be ILLOGICAL to assume that everyone abides by the rules of logic constantly. Thus, I have satisfied my opponent's criterion. "2. The resolution quite clearly states, "is logical" this means we are talking about now, not cavemen." That's fine. Some people today are at a lack of information too. Some people today also have a poor grasp of science. Many people share the same type of thinking as the people of the past, since humans as a species value the same things they did in the past. Thus, it is logical that the belief in the Christian god would survive to this very day. "3. Should my opponent now try to argue arguments that he has previously dropped his arguments should be discarded as I have no chance to respond." I won't, and I didn't. Everything I am arguing now is but clarification for the points I argued last time. Everything I have said here was summarized in the last phrase of my last response, which I shall quote below: "The examples you provided all show that the beliefs themselves are illogical because they are derived fallaciously. I am saying that it is logical for primitive beings to develop those flawed beliefs given their status and background. Hence, they are not quite relevant to my point." ******** To conclude, a misunderstanding on my opponent's part jeopardized his entire argument. Though he had a chance to respond to my argument, he mistakenly spent his last response attacking straw-men instead of my actual position. Throughout this entire debate, my opponent has been trying to prove that no one can logically conclude that the Christian god exists. He did not actually do this. To make things worse, I spent my time giving the reasons why people believe in the Christian god and why this belief has come so far. My argument has nothing to do with whether this belief is true or not. I was simply arguing that it is logical that the belief exists. Hence, I have fulfilled my duty of showing that BELIEF IN THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS LOGICAL.