Any attempt at arguing for the existence an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

Final rebuttal. My opponent tries to find a way around the problem, never addressing the topic at hand, so there has unfortunately not been a real argumentation on her part, even though I took the time to react to the content of her flawed position."This does not address my concern, being that there should be a step before the initial step."What should have been there is of no concern. Ironically, this is the very problem with atheism. As stated before, the energy needed for the Big Bang should have come from somewhere, raising the question of creation. This does not bother you, so it must also not bother you what should precede my example. The initial step didn't have to be logical. The attempt of argumentation has to be the logical reaction to the premise, and that you have not disproved. It is clear that illogical situations may arise in the world - if it were otherwise, logic would not have developed as a science to contrast this. But it is absolutely possible to REACT to these situations logically. Logic must be the outcome, not the initial. If you were suddenly attacked by a homeless, mentally ill person "for reading his mind", this would be illogical. But the logical reaction remains to call the police. By your account, it would be illogical to call the police, because the attack was illogical. This happened to me, by the way (just as an anecdote).My exemplary scientist finds himself facing despair and narrowly escapes by believing in god. He is attacked for this by a former colleague. It is the logical thing to ATTEMPT AND DEFEND YOURSELF. It's called self-preservation, as despair is an undesirable state. Self-preservation (not a new point, just a synonym) is logical."The fact is that the initial step is unfounded, that it is illogical to start from an unfounded base." This is a contradiction to your whole argument. You start with my argumentation, which you call illogical, and start from there to prove your point. You start with the assumption of a creator god, call it illogical and then disprove it. So starting with an unfounded base is the core of argumentation."regardless of whether someone actually argues or not, my criticism is still valid in regards to feeling the need to argue."It is not, as you do not address the example at all. The need to argue arises from the very logical self-preservation in this case."It is this certain level of belief that I am criticising; I’m saying that it shouldn’t exist in the first place."By that account, you could also argue that the universe should not be there in the first place, validating the point of our scientist. The laws of physics state that energy cannot be created, only transformed. That's the dead end the exemplary scientist has reached. The energy should not exist in the first place. If you allow an argument like yours, then you MUST concede it is logical for the exemplary scientist to argue that the universe needed an outside force to be created in the beginning, before the Big Bang, making the assumption of a creator god logical BY YOUR OWN LOGIC.Either you accept that the premise need not be logical for the ARGUMENTATION to be logical, OR you accept that my example follows your own logic and still holds by your OWN terms."Therefore, it should be readily evident that the difference between ATTEMPTing to argue for something, and arguing for something, is irrelevant in regards to what I was criticising."No, it's not. The logic behind the attempt is self-preservation in my example, and you have not proved that to be illogical."No, I am refuting the need to argue in the first place."So you claim, but I see no arguments to that end. You continue to evade the example, because actually, you don't seem to know how to counter it. May I remind you that YOU started a debate about this topic? So you clearly have demonstrated a need to discuss the topic of a creator god. By your own account, starting an argument requires this: "‘Argue’ has built within it the implication of debate, meaning argumentation between people."You came here seeking someone to debate the logic behind defending the existence of a creator god, yet now what you say is you didn't expect someone to feel the need to debate WITH you, as you are now "refuting the need to argue in the first place."In that case, you came here either expecting to find no one to discuss with you - which is unlikely, since you THANKED me for my arguments - OR you came here not taking this debate seriously in the first place - which would then have been a waste of my time and disrespectful to this entire community - OR this is just an ad-hoc argument out of the blue, without real meaning. Either way, you just dissolved your own argumentation into a giant contradiction:YOU ADMIT TO COMING HERE FOR A DEBATE YOU SEE NO NEED FOR AN OPPONENT TO ENGAGE IN."Your example was flawed as it created a false dichotomy"My example follows a number of documented REAL cases presented by Thomas S. Kuhn. So the dichotomy is proved and real, despite your claims to the contrary. People feel this way. It is a truism that feelings are not logical. So where you are going at is this: "Feelings SHOULD be logical, everything else makes no sense."This is a contradiction, as feelings are the great antipode to logic. Popular culture knows this through Mr. Spock. Reactions to feelings can be logical, nonetheless."Again, if the position were not so obviously wrong, it would be reasonable to argue for it."We already established that argumentation by its definition is independent from its content. YOU PRESUME THE POSITION TO BE WRONG, HENCE ARGUING FOR IT IS WRONG. This is an illegal presumption, as it can only be determined after the debate whether the position is wrong or not - it's what we are here for. "Obviousness" is a classic fallacy."Your argument is circular in that you presuppose the belief is correct. It takes this form:""1) You argue for the existence of a creator god ...3) You argue for the existence of a creator god because you believe in one"NEVER DID. I tire of your straw man arguments. I argue for the logic of defending that belief, never for the existence of a creator god. It can be logical to defend something that isn't there - in my example, out of self-preservation."an omnipotent, creator god is a logical contradiction. There could have been a creator, but that creator cannot be omnipotent."I still see no valid argument for that, see my round 3 rebuttal. There's a contradiction in your sentence: if there IS an omnipotent being, he can well be anything he so desires. Omnipotence would obviously include the ability to resolve paradoxes. Including omnipotence and the word "cannot" in one argument is a contradiction."if the human mind is incapable of understanding God’s work, then how can you make the argument for Intelligent Design?"Most children will actually be awed by everything adults do, even though they do not understand it, because they acknowledge the complexity. Again, you cannot presume to understand the intent of an ALL-intelligent being. If god exists, there may be reasons for him to keep us wondering, to instigate this very discussion, for example."“Finely tuned” is the phrase theists use to prove Intelligent Design."Never heard of it. Pity you failed to present evidence for this. I refute this."The person could demonstrate intelligence via eye movement, thus there is still a way."Not all waking coma patients can do that. Some are completely incapable of communicating. Your argument is wrong.Final statement: I presented an example - taken from factual reports - how arguing for a creator god can be logical out of self-preservation. My opponent never faced that example full-front, failing to disprove me, instead complaining about the premise of the example. Thus I have demonstrated that not "ANY" attempt to argue for a creator god is ILLOGICAL.The core arguments of my opponent are all contradictions, thus rendering the point invalid to begin with.Thank you all.