It is more logical to assume that god exists than not

Thank you for accepting and I look forward to a great debate As a preamble to my arguments I would like to not only define logic but to also explain what that means in the context of the debate. Logic- a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. From Merriam Webster As the definition of logic infers in order to be logical in what you believe you need to have evidence or "criteria of validity". If there are two different criteria of validity (or evidence) that contradict themselves that would make that point mute. To sum up, something automatically becomes invalid or illogical if it contradicts itself and if god is proved contradictory that is an automatic vote for con. First Argument- God of the Gaps: Before human culture had the renaissance, scientific ways of explaining how things work were very scarcely accepted and usually treated as either magic or stupidity. The way these people did explain how things worked? God did it. Seasons changing? God did it. Sun rising? God did it. Etc. This was known as fact in the time and it was widely assumed that if there was something we couldn't see happen or do ourselves God did it. But as the human race advances in discovery and scientific technology we can understand more of how nature functions. This stomps on the god did it mentality as we now can understand how the seasons work and how the sun rises. This leads us to 3 separate possibilities. 1. There is an ever receding god with less and less ability to change the world as time goes on, which would contradict it's own literature as it is displayed as omnipotent.("Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please" (Isaiah 46:9-10)) 2. We know absolutely nothing about how nature around us works which would be considered illogical as there is a ton of evidence to support it. 3. There is no god, thus more logical to assume that he doesn't exist than does, as to believe in something with hardly any evidence and a contradictory history proves that it is illogical to assume he exists. Second Argument- Contradictions: Here's a list of contradictions: 1. If he made us in his image (So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)). How come we are outclassed by almost every animal in the world in terms of vision, smell, hearing, and reflexes. If god is all powerful (omnipotent) then we should have the best senses ever. Also why does god have reproductive organs if he will never have sex (again his own image). Why does god have a stomach if he doesn't eat? Why does god have legs if he doesn't need to walk? Because he wants them? This contradicts with the bible as the bible says that god is perfect in every way and he would not have useless things in and on his body. 2. God can literally do anything he wants as he is omnipotent. This means that for someone to assume he's real they would have to believe in something that can be it's own father, go right and left at the same time, and even (as the metaphor goes) create a rock he couldn't lift. This contradicts itself and thus would be illogical to assume. 3. The only evidence that god is real comes from a book called the bible (I'm sure you've heard of it :-) ). This book provides no evidence to why god is real other than saying that God himself says he is real. This is circular reasoning and is not evidence to his existence. He is real because I say so -> I say so because he's real. All three of these reasons are simple yet potent ways to prove that god is contradictory and thus believing in a being that would be contradictory in nature is an illogical point of view. Third Argument- The bible: The bible is the crux of the Christian religion. Without the bible god would not exist in the minds of the human race. The bible is thoroughly connected to god. The bible is highly contradictory itself. The most glaring being that god loves all of us (But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)) yet will send divorced women, disobedient slaves, atheists, and the entire LGBT community to eternal damnation. (I can pull up bible verses on all 4 of those if requested). This is the ultimate contradiction through the bible as this love is what describes the massive amount of worship that comes to god by people all around the earth. My opponent will attempt to describe these verses as metaphors or not to be taken literally. but who are you to cherry pick the bible? If the bible is the book of the most powerful being ever why do you get to decide what is true and what isn't. This contradiction is huge and mandates a vote for Con. To summarize my argument: God and God's scripture is full of contradictions and according to the definition of logic, believing in something with obvious and blatant contradictions would be illogical netting con the votes. My opponent must not only defend that god exists but also that there are a total of zero contradictions within the belief system. I also predict something my opponent may say. "Believing in a god through faith doesn't constitute logic". This is not to be accepted as the idea of believing in something without logic is the crux of why this debate exists. I want to have a good structured argument on the logic of god, not on if god can even be defined by logic in the first place. To elaborate a little further, we live in a world defined by things that make sense. Logic is how you determine if something makes sense or not. if something is illogically impossible (like omnipotence) than it doesn't matter in real life or in the debate round. The only place it belongs is in people's minds. I thank my opponent for following the rules and for accepting this debate. I look forward to it.