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

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT I. Understandable = Explainable? My opponent continues his objection of the definition of "explainable", stating that his original word (intelligible) does not mean "able to be explained" but "able to be understood". However, I can only repeat what I've already said: if it is possible for a phenomena to be understood, then it is possible that phenomena to be explained (and vise versa). I will continue to hold that my word swap was justified and leave it to the audience to decide whether I am right in doing so. Why my opponent has dragged this objection on for so long, however, is beyond me; the only reason I swapped those words was to show the audience why the truth of his premise was undeniable. II. New Premise: "Everything which exists has a cause. " It is unfortunate for my opponent's argument that it must include this premise to be valid, because this is the one premise that an argument for God cannot possibly be valid with. Do not let my opponent trick you: there can be NO exception to Special Pleading. A premise is either true or false, and if a premise (such as "Everything which exists has a cause") has an exception, then that premise is false. The first premise in his new argument is, of course, this: "Everything which exists has a cause" And the conclusion is this: "There must be a first cause which in itself is not caused by anything else (a deity)" It makes not one iota of difference what other premises lie between these two statements, for they clearly contradict each other. My opponent has revealed that his cosmological argument cannot be valid without the premise "Everything which exists has a cause", but that premise cannot be true considering the conclusion asserts an uncaused deity (unless this uncaused deity, in fact, does not exist). Therefore, I hold that my opponent's cosmological argument is invalid, as it must simultaneously include and exclude this crucial premise. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT I. Equivocation My opponent claims that the only definition of the word "purpose" he is using is "the reason for which a thing was created". He also claims that magma was specifically created by an intelligent being to allow volcanic activity, and he knows this "because what other purpose does magma have? ". How this logically follows is beyond me, however. He has still provided no justification for why it should be believed that magma was created for this purpose or if it is simply a byproduct of its natural properties. II. Argument from Final Consequences My opponent made the mistake of assuming the Earth was created to sustain life because of how convenient all of its properties are. For instance, he says the distance between the Earth and sun allows for the creation of life. This is true, of course, but says nothing in support his argument for a deity. 1. The path the Earth takes around the sun is elliptical, not perfectly circular. So during certain times of the year, it is closer than during other times. The Earth would have to be either about 25,800,600 miles closer or about 185,900,800 miles farther away in order for life to not be possible. Not exactly conclusive proof that the distance was carefully fine-tuned to support life. 2. This violates the logical fallacy Argument from Final Consequences, which, put simply, is a perversion of cause and effect. My opponent states that because the Earth and its life work so well together that the Earth must have been created with the life in mind. However, in actuality, there is no evidence for this and it could have very well been the other way around: life adjusted to suit its environment. Therefore, I hold that my opponent's teleological argument is invalid, as the premises are completely unsupported, ergo the conclusion is completely unsupported. Thank you, THEBOMB, for providing such interesting arguments and refutations in this debate. I urge the audience to objectively discern which of us provided the most rational arguments and to vote accordingly.