It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

I have a nagging suspicion Con doesn't actually know much about his own argument on non-cognitivism. He treats it like a logical positivist would: assuming empirical implications. The argument actually seeks to discredit 'God,' as being an invalid term, something which I established does not actually exist; there is no such thing as an 'invalid term,' all terms are valid since words have no truth value. It’s also interesting to see how Con is constantly consulting a dictionary. Strangely, Con didn't really refute anything relevant to my case, so I feel like he is somewhat out of his depth. Argument from non-cognitivism: 1.1) I'm somewhat disappointed that Con did not understand my argument, instead thinking there were contradictions. My argument was that God is a being, not a word, and thus the argument could not discredit the existence of God. However, the point where Con messed up was in assuming that I argued the word 'God' somehow didn't exist (In his argument last round, you would notice that when I said "it is presupposed in this debate that God is a word, not a being," that Con thought I said that the word God isn't real, which is completely wrong). The word God has definitions, one of these which I am trying to argue as to having is existence. If God exists, then the word 'God,' can be defined as having existence. The argument from Non-cognitivism attacks God the word, not God the being. This means that God the being is not actually discredited. The resolution is in no way negated by this argument. 1.2) My point that the argument defines God out of existence visibly stumps Con here and understandably so. The first fallacy I see is where he answers my objection by stating "I agree, but how do you know what that value is without a word?"In science, we don't need words to know anything; everything has a numerical value of 1 or 0 similar to binary which is justified by the law of the excluded middle. 1=exists, 0=not exists. For simplicity, many things are written in logical symbolism [1] to avoid using words, since you end up making mistakes like Con. Another good way to refute this point is by being born deaf. Deaf people don't think in words, while we do. This is a practical demonstration of the uselessness of words. Who cares if words exist or not? They don't change anything about reality. God could exist even if there were no words to describe Him. 1.3) Con doesn't understand this point either... The law of identity does not justify making up properties for words to illogically disprove them. Why must words have 3 different sorts of attributes? Since no justification could be made in the last round, this rebuttal also holds firm against Con's argument. 1.4) Logical laws don't describe reality as a primary function and are not contingent on reality, I have established this already. Furthermore, nothing which Con said was in any way relevant to this point. Please re-read with better care. 1.5) Premise 1 of the argument was the target of this rebuttal. I challenged Con to justify why everything needs all 3 different attributes in order to have logical existence. Con here apparently does not know what the law of identity is. "a statement (as “a house is a house”) in which the subject and predicate are the same is true."[2] Con went onto a website and copied the first sentence across, [3] which was a part off the introduction, not the law of identity. What a hilarious mistake. Furthermore, anything that has existence not contingent on matter has no attributes, like logic. Con tried to refute my point by saying that my example of 'idea' actually does have attributes by going to dictionary.com and copying across a definition of idea to make it have attributes. So to refute this entire argument, I will go to that source exactly and do the same thing with God: 'the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.'[4] Tadaa, this argument is now invalid. Con must accept that his defence fails, and thus my defence wins, or that my example is wrong along with his defence, and thus my first argument wins. Checkmate. 1.6) Occam's razor says we should not accept theories with too many assumptions, my point exactly. This argument from non-cognitivism is thoroughly dead. Argument from Correct choice: Con seems to think that I didn't address his point, which is strange since every word was an explanation as to why his point was incorrect. In simple English: 1) This argument pre-supposes the validity of materialistic apologetics made up by a guy on a website Con copied from. 2) Since materialism has already been established as wrong in this debate, the entire argument is invalid. I also gave other reasons why the point was wrong. TAG: I seem to have been accused of a list of fallacies including red-herring fallacy, which I couldn't find in re-reading my own post. If you would read with care, you would note that every word was intimately related to the point I was pushing, that point was that con didn't put in any justification of his argument's premises when he was copying his argument over from his other debate. Curiously enough, it is Con who has committed the red-herring fallacy; he actually hasn't refuted my argument if you take a close look. His rebuttal was a question: would the laws of logic exist if God didn't exist? The answer is unknown, yet the argument is not refuted just by asking a question. He also had an ambiguous counter-argument: laws of logic are contingent not on the mind but on existence. So what is existence? Existence of God? I'm going to interpret it that way. And since it’s the last round, no corrections can be possibly made by Con and this point succeeds in affirming the motion. Ontological argument: I was quite annoyed by Con claiming that he refuting the model ontological argument also refuted the unique one I used. IT DOESN'T! I have demonstrated why all his rebuttals didn't work yet he persisted in claiming that my argument was the same as the model ontological argument. Gaunillo's criticism doesn't invalidate this argument since God is not mathematically interchangeable with anything representable by an integer in any of the premises. Con, I have produced a condensation of the argument into logically symbolism which I want you to use instead of the worded argument so as to avoid such mistakes in future: http://debate.org... Defence of Pascals wager: Pascal's wager is actually an ingenious mathematical argument; it takes into consideration that there are many gods, and thus the wager would not be 50-50. However, let’s assume that the wager is 99.99999% in the atheist’s favour of likelihood and 0.000001% in favour of the theist. The argument states the utility increases over the amount of time you spend in heaven if you won the wager as a theist. However, the chance of being correct while a theist is very low, so is it worth it? The answer mathematically is yes. Since heaven is inherently infinite, its utility is also infinite and so in an equation it would look like thus: theist: low but finite number x infinite utility = infinitely good reward. Atheist: high but finite number x finite utility = finitely good reward. This argument cannot be reversed against the theist, since it is a wager against God, not no God. If it were a wager for no God, the results would still be the same. Making up a religion that states that believing in God will result in hell also is mathematically invalid, as it will not be as likely true as existing religions and would mathematically be cancelled out. Concluding, not much of my material was understood, let alone refuted compared to the demolition of his arguments. Thanks Con for humouring me to this debate. Sources: [1] http://philosophy.lander.edu...; [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...; [3] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...; [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...;