Logic suggest that some sort of creative, conscious God may exist . . .

IntroductionFirst of all, my opponent is committing the fallacy of equivocation with regards to TAG. There are different versions of TAG, the one my opponent was claiming he was going to defend deals with just logic, and not morals or science[1]. Thus, there is no Christian worldview presupposed, and Christianity need not necessarily play any role pertaining to TAG. My opponent specifically stated that he was going to be arguing that logic leads to God, if that is not TAG, I don't know what is! Thus, my definition of God stands, because even though Pro said he wasn't defending the Christian God, TAG does not necessarily deal with the Christian God, as there are different versions of TAG. The one that deals specifically with logic is clearly the one the resolution implies. Thus, there is no basis for rejecting my definition of God. Even if logical absolutes are grounded in a necessary mind, that in no way presupposes Christianity specifically. Also, his "molding" of the laws nonsense did not get introduced until after I accepted the debate. Without a definition provided by Pro in the first round, the debate is open to my definition. Also, he can't conflate Set E with "it happened by chance", as that is a non-sequitur! There is no reason to conflate "Atheism" with "it happened by chance". He just assumes this without any justification. Thus, his argument against Ryan Stringer's Modal Argument can be dismissed. It is based on a straw-man."However, this scenario doesn't support atheism. It supports an intelligent designer and defines man as a species that that develops into God, ultimately evolving into a life form that can potentially alter the laws of physics, construct a time machine, travel back to the big bang, and alter the universe so that it can have just the right conditions to harbor biological life." - ProPro is just calling humans "God". That is just semantics. He can define a fork or spoon as "God" too but it means nothing. Thus, his argument above can be disregarded. Also, there is no time machine involved, just time loops and wave-function collapse. Additionally, humans don't transform into one life form in this scenario. Pro did not even pay attention to my argument, and it is rather embarrassing as all of his arguments are based on straw-man fallacies. My argument deals with time loops due to quantum mechanics, not time machines and God's. I am under the suspician that Pro barely even understands a word I said. "My opponent posited that a God would be required for this scenario of a time loop to be sound." - ProNo God, just humans. ConclusionPro did not define God in the first round. Thus, the debate is open to my definition as long as it is not necessarily the Christian God. However, a necessary mind to ground the laws of logic to not necessitate Christianity, as Christianity could be false, and this necessary mind could still exist. Since pro alluded to the notion that he was going to argue God from logic, my TAG definition of God is more that justified. Pro did not respond to the Modal Argument for Atheism without resorting to straw-man, and petty tautology (calling the universe "God", or humans "God"). Also, Paul Davies shows why God is not needed to explain fine-tuning, thus, Pro's argument for God as I have defined, fails. My definition sticks, as Pro did not define God in the first round. Since these two propositions are true:(i) The Modal Argument for Atheism succeeds(ii) The fine-tuning argument for Theism failsThe resolution has been negated. Sources[1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...