There are no logical arguments for the existence of god.

Due to the lack of any objection from my opponent, my proposed definition of a "logical argument" is regarded as agreed upon. Logic is a system for analyzing the relationships between propositions. I.e., logic determined that a given conclusion is true if the premises are true. Logic does not take interest in whether the original premises are true or false, except in the special cases of tautologies and self-contradictions, or if the premises are being used merely as shorthand for conclusions to prior arguments based on more fundamental premises. My premises were neither tautological nor self-contradictory, and Pro defined no rules of the debate that would require my premises to be regarded as shorthand for prior arguments supporting them. My premises are therefore valid purely on the basis that they are premises. Given this, my argument is a simple if->then inference and thus valid, i.e., in accordance with the rules of logic. Thus Pro's proposition is proven false by counterexample. Furthermore, even if the validity of my argument did depend on the truth of the premises, Pro's objections to P2 are invalid. First, Pro claims than any symbols representing a non-existent thing have no meaning and therefore are not part of any language. He then claims that this renders P2 meaningless. The only conceivable way in which that would follow from his premise is if he is also operating under the premise that God does not exist, as this is the only way in which P2 would include symbols describing any non-existent thing. But this means that Pro is critiquing an argument for God's existence by employing the premise that God does not exist! This is circular reasoning and therefore invalid. Furthermore, even if one overlooks the fallacy of circular reasoning, Pro's claim about meaningless symbols undermines his original proposition. Pro's proposition is that "there are no logical arguments for the existence of god". Pro has put forward the premise that symbols representing a non-existent thing are meaningless: "A physical symbol which doesn't symbolize anything is not a part of language, let alone to have any meaning". Pro, through his objection to my P2, demonstrates that he additionally accepts the premises that 1) the inclusion of a meaningless symbol in a proposition renders the proposition meaningless, 2) a meaningless proposition must be rejected, and 3) God does not exist. Based on these premises offered by Pro, the proposition must be rejected as false. The proposition makes use of the term "God"; Pro operates under the premise that God does not exist; this renders "God" a meaningless term, which in turn renders Pro's proposition meaningless, therefore Pro's proposition must be rejected as false if Pro accepts all of his own premises. Pro's second objection to my P2 is the perceived lack of any justified causal relation between the two propositions of the conditional statement. However, this either ignores the role of the Zebra as a specific example fulfilling the cosmological argument for God's existence (which depends purely on the existence of any given thing within the universe), or presupposes the invalidity of the cosmological argument. Pro himself has created a restriction disallowing the debate of the validity of additional arguments for the existence of God, therefore Pro cannot make any effort to disprove the cosmological argument as a valid causal link between the existence of Zebras and the existence of God, and must therefore entertain the possibility that such a causal link exists. Because he is thus forced to entertain such a possibility, it is impossible to definitely disprove such a possibility, and thus he is unable to prove the invalidity of my argument, which is what Pro defined as his goal in the debate. To summarize: My argument's validity does not depend on the truth of its premises, but even if it did, the facts remain that Pro's first objection to my argument not only commits the fallacy of circular reasoning, but also undermines his own original proposition, and Pro's second objection to my argument overlooks a possible explanation that the rules of the debate prevent him from making any effort to invalidate. All three aspects of Pro's objections are thus invalid and my argument stands.