Islam is the most logical of the Abrahamic Faiths

Thanks, Pro.Opening ArgumentAs requested by my opponent, I will save my rebuttal for the third round and instead present my own arguments in this round as to why Islam is not the most logical of the Abrahamic Faiths.i. The Muslim conception of God is not maximally greatTypically, God is defined as a maximally great being. This means that God is maximal in all great-making properties. For example, God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. If a conception of God were to be less than maximally great, then that conception would be false as it is conceivable that an even greater being exists, which would itself be God. The Islamic conception of God is not maximally great. An all-good God would have to be an all-loving God. The Islam conception of God is not an all-loving God, but rather a semi-loving God. Let's take a look at some examples found in the Quran that show the Islamic conception of God to be less-than all-loving:"Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers" 2:98http://quran.com..."Allah does not like every sinning disbeliever" 2:276http://quran.com..."If they turn away- then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers" 3:32http://quran.com..."Allah does not like the wrongdoers" 3:57http://quran.com..."Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful" 4:36http://quran.com..."Allah does not like transgressors" 5:87http://quran.com..."He does not like those who commit excess" 6:141http://quran.com..."Allah does not like traitors" 8:58http://quran.com...We can conclude from these examples that the less-than all-loving conception of God found in Islam is not a distortion or selection of a single verse, but rather a common theme displayed throughout the Quran. It follows, then, that the Islamic conception of God is inadequate and that a greater being exists instead.ii. The Resurrection of Jesus of NazarethIslam cannot account for the facts surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. These facts, best presented by Dr. William Lane Craig, include:FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. There are no other competing burial stories (which we would expect if this burial story was false) than the one attested to by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians.FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.The fact the the scripture tells us the tomb of Jesus was found empty by "women followers" is essential. We would expect the witnesses to be men if this was a lie, as women's testament was worthless. Furthermore, Jewish opponents of Christ claimed that the body was stolen by His followers. This is evidence that the tomb was in fact empty, otherwise these enemies would have no reason to make such a claim.FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.Independent attestations of these appearances can be found in each of the Gospels.FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.There was no room in Jewish belief for a Messiah that would die (or rise from the dead.) The actions of the original disciples, if the resurrection did not occur, should have been to abandon their belief that Jesus was God. However, they believed so strongly that Jesus was raised from the dead (in conflict with the Jewish belief) that they went to their deaths proclaiming the truth of it. I can't think of anyone who would die for a cause in which they were lying about.Burden of ProofMy opponent is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate. To do so, he must provide justification for the assertion that "Islam is the most logical of the Abrahamic Faiths". As such, even if all the arguments I present fail (which I don't for a second think they do) my opponent would still have all of his work in front of him in proving that "Islam is the most logical of the Abrahamic Faiths." In the next round, I will address the arguments my opponent has made thus far. SummaryI have given two arguments to think that Islam is not the most logical of the Abrahamic faiths. The first shows that the Islamic conception of God is inadequate, as this conception is not of an all-loving God, but rather of a semi-loving God whom only loves those who love him. The second argument shows that Islam is not able to account for the facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In order to sustain the burden of proof and win this debate, my opponent must knock each of these arguments down in the next round and, more importantly, present sound arguments of his own in attempt to show that "Islam is the most logical of the Abrahamic Faiths". Until he is able to accomplish these two feats, we can reasonably conclude that Islam is not any more logical than either of the other two Abrahamic faiths.Thank you.Sources http://quran.com...http://www.vatican.va...http://www.reasonablefaith.org...http://quran.com...http://quran.com...http://quran.com...http://quran.com...http://quran.com...http://quran.com...http://www.vatican.va...http://www.vatican.va...http://www.vatican.va...http://www.vatican.va...http://www.vatican.va...