It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

Con Said:" As implied by the resolution, this debate concerns logic and logical reasons to believe in God. My opponent's one and only argument is highly illogical and mostly based in faith." Rebuttal: My opponent wishes to play semantics through a myopic reduction of word definitions. As per the dictionary reference: World English Dictionary logic (ˈlɒdʒɪk) - n 1. formal logic deduction See also induction the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is properly drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context 2. formal system Compare formal language any particular formal system in which are defined axioms and rules of inference 3. the system and principles of reasoning used in a specific field of study 4. a particular method of argument or reasoning 5. force or effectiveness in argument or dispute 6. reasoned thought or argument, as distinguished from irrationality 7. the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts, etc 8. chop logic to use excessively subtle or involved logic or argument 9. electronics, computing a.See also logic circuit the principles underlying the units in a computer system that perform arithmetical and logical operations b. ( as modifier ): a logic element We can clearly see that logic cannot be reduced to exclude faith reasoning. As per definition #1, I argue from a point of philosophy, concerned with the analysis of patterns set forth in scripture. The very same scripture (I remind my opponent) which was conceded in the definition to explain the very character and nature of God. My logic is not only relevant, it is drawn from a mutually conceded source. As per definition #2, I argue from a point of axioms (subjects that are self-explanatory) and inferences, which are the process of arriving at a strict logical consequence based on assumed (unknowable, i.e.. faith) premises. As per definition #3, I argue from a point of Theology, which is the reasoning and logic rooted in the study of the subjective deity and his revelation. As per definition #4, I argue from a point of internal rationale, as my logic does not need to be understood by my opponent to have intrinsic rationale to others.(i.e.. relative understanding). As per definition #5, I argue from a point of effective understanding of the nature of God. My opponent wishes to debate the logic of God without actually talking about God. That's illogical. A straw man, a polar dichotomy, a bait and switch, nay, it is poor conduct. My opponent was hoping that my arguments are limited to #6, begging the atheist God of chance that I might be an idiot. Alas, my opponent has joined the ranks of the faithful. As per definition #7, I argue from the chronology of scripture, which has been relatively successful in it's verification and substantiation. Places, people, events, calendars and methods are seem to conclude the Bible has viable content of fact. To my opponent's dismay, he will not be dealing with fairy tales. Conclusion: I have not forsaken my burden, I have fulfilled it to the highest demand. Not only have I provided a mechanism for faith, I have provided a cause, a source, a limiting factor and supportive text. It may not be the logic which satisfies my opponent, but it is logic as it satisfies 6 of 9 definitions. It is profusely sound reasoning and one does not require faith to understand it. Understanding and being in agreement are entirely separate concepts. To meet my burden, I would only need to meet one definition. Therefore, my argument is extended and remains entirely unchallenged. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 　 Con Said: "My opponent makes the huge assumption that God exists in the first place, without providing any reason to for this belief other than faith, which is not a logical justification." Rebuttal: It is not my burden to provide proof of God. It is my burden to provide a logic for faith. My opponent is appealing to unspoken, unwritten rules which neither party agreed to. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con Said: So because he has the BoP to prove that it is logical to believe that God exists in the first place.. Rebuttal: Wishful thinking. Again, my burden is to provide a logic for faith, not a logic for his existence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con Said: Not all Judeo-Christian religions hold to the idea that humans do not have free will to decide what to believe. Judaism and Catholicism both teach that humans have free will [1].Rebuttal: Marvelous rebuttal, but my logic does not need to be universally accepted in order to qualify as logic. Otherwise your own logic would be disqualified since it also lacks universal support. Should I list a few organizations that disagree with your stance? Would that effectively cause you to forfeit? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con Said: My case is that until there is a logical (not faith based) reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian God exists, it is illogical to hold that belief. Rebuttal: Did you wish to perhaps establish this with a process of reason, rather than stating it axiomatically? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 　 Point 2 / round 2 - Mathematical evidence of intelligence and order "The Golden Ratio". Definition: "..the value (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2, which is approximately 1.6180339887, the ratio of a diagonal of a pentagon to its side; also called golden ratio, golden section, golden number, divine proportion." [5] It is highly logical to conclude that the appearance of mathematical harmony in natural structures is a result of design. The incredible commonality of divine proportions can be seen in the biotic and abiotic. From the proportions of the human body to the structure of galaxies, the golden ratio is ever pervasive. Would scripture support that God designs within the context of this phenomenon? Absolutely! In Exodus 25:10, God provides the measurements of the Ark of the Covenant. "You shall make an ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits longs, one and a half cubits wide and one and a half cubits high" In Exodus 27:1, God provides the measurements for the altar. "You shall make an altar of acacia wood, on a square, five cubits longs and five cubits wide; it shall be three cubits high" In Genesis 6:15, God commands Noah to build an ark. "This is how you shall build it: the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits and its height thirty cubits." Conclusion: The Golden Ratio can easily provide a logic to the conclusion of faith. In fact, the Golden Ratio provides us with ample substance for faith. 　 http://dictionary.reference.com... [1] Genesis 6:15 - http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] Exodus 27:1 - http://www.biblegateway.com... [3] Exodus 25:10 - http://www.biblegateway.com... [4] Golden Ratio - http://dictionary.reference.com... [5]