Belief in the Christian god is logical.

Obviously this wasn't quite where I expected this debate to go.... however instead of arguing against my opponents perception of the word logical I am going to argue the idea that he has presented. I would ask that voters vote on who did the better debating. Thank you. I will start my round out by offering a few definitions, should my opponent feel that they are not untrue he has every right to argue them with me. In the end voters will most likely be forced to decide which definitions to go with. Logical- According to or agreeing with the principles of logic. Logic- Of reason or sound judgment. Thus under the definition of logic, logical could be redefined as, "according to or agreeing with the principles of reason or sound judgment." Please note that both of these definitions are rather simple do not take an overbearing amount of thought to comprehend. They are regular definitions we as people have seen all the time. My opponent begins his case with the following, "The attributes of the Christian god are mainly omnipotence, omnicience, and unconditional love. It is also an intelligent, purposeful, and willful creator. It is perfectly logical that these ideas would develop because humans worship power, knowledge, love, etc." >>I am in accordance with his conclusion here. Paraphrased, he states that these ideas are perfectly logical for humans to develop because they worship them. This much of his contention is true. However at the point my opponent states, "As intelligent and willful creators, humans create a god who is a similarly intelligent and willful creator." I must disagree. While it may be perfectly logical to develop ideas of power, knowledge, love, etc... it is rather illogical to deify those ideas into an omnipotent, omniscience god. Believing in something that humans cannot see, is a completely illogical idea. Under my opponents socioanthropological point of view humans create a logical base on foundations. These foundations need to be steady in order to support the rest of the human logical system. The idea of basing our socioanthropological logic on an idea that we cannot even see is the least logical thing to do. The most logical thing to do would be to base our socioanthropological logic system on something so grounded in facts that nothing can even attempt to disprove it. The main problem with my opponents contention is the fact that he commits the fallacy of composition. In other words my opponent takes logical characteristics of god (power, knowledge, love) and thereby jumps straight to the conclusion that belief in god is logical. This fallacy would be like me saying, because Hitler had three good qualities he was overall a good guy. Not true. Just because parts of god might be logical this does not mean the belief in god is also so. Finally, in order to seal my case, I will give you an example that falls under my opponents logic but is clearly illogical. Santa Clause: 1. He is omnipotent, he has a naughty and nice list, he knows what you've done and where on his list you are. 2. He is powerful, he has flying deer, he has an army of elves, he's generally considered to have magical properties seen by the fact that he can enter houses without chimneys. 3. He has a great deal of love, he spends all of his time dedicated to making children happy. I don't know anyone more loving or dedicated than that.... 4. He is an intelligent creator, he makes toys, he's seen to have talking snowman in some movies. 5. He's wealthy, he is always portrayed as fat meaning he is well fed, he owns the entire north pole not to mention the workshop. Wow, 5 traits of Santa Clause which are logical under my opponents socioanthropological point of view. Does this therefor mean that Santa Clause is a logical belief!? I'll let the voters answer. Your turn. =)