IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

Standards of LogicYou didn't really refute this argument, you basically conceded that, yes, we ultimately cannot trust logic. However, you borrowed from the non-theist paradigm to try to refute the theistic paradigm. This is inconsistent. If God exists, and created humans in the image of God as rational beings, then yes, we can trust logic. You can't judge this paradigm based on the idea that we are all words put in a broken sentence, because in this paradigm, the world is not equivalent to a broken sentence. So, the point stands. Non-theists have no basis on which to accept logic. Theists can trust logic. If you can't trust logic, there is not basis of what to know is logical. Thus the statement can logically be deduced: Non-theism is illogical. MiraclesPro: For your first claim, no. It makes sense to assume "Well, if the christian God exists then he obviously wrote the scriptures, therefore, they are true. " But the other way around, that just isn't true. You misread my claim. Please, carefully read my arguments. I said: If the Christian God exists, then it logically follows that miracles exist, as proclaimed by many passages in the Sciptures. So, if we see miracles today, that is consistent with the existence of a personal God, and so it is likely that God does exist. I did not say, "The bible says miracles exist, so this proves they exist. " I argued that because the Bible states that God grants miracles, THEN IF we see miracles today, we can logically induce that God does exist. Pro: Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it true. I did not argue for this either. Pro, please carefully read my arguments, because you keep misrepresenting my statements with straw-man arguments. The argument is that we have testimonies from reliable sources who admit to having seen events that defy natural human biology. You bring in Biologists to the argument, which is irrelevant, because they do not spend their time in hospitals were miracles are said to occur. Pro: "Only an idiot would believe that"This is an ad hominem, and an automatic forfeit for you conduct point. My opponent has only straw-manned and ignored my argument. The argument that reliable doctors have witnessed miracles in the hospital remains un-refuted. Resurrection of JesusMy opponent makes the argument that, if it's in the bible, then it automatically isn't true. This statement is horrendously false. This is like saying, a woman gave brith to a child in her home, but it died during birth. No one else ever saw the baby. So if the mother ever says the baby did exist, you cannot trust her, because she is the mother. I think you can see how this is fallacious reasoning. My opponent then argues that people will die for a lie. He asserts this without any evidence. Unless ou can provide evidence of people dying for a cause that they know to be untrue, then this argument remains un-refuted. Adam and EveIf God could create Adam and Eve, He could easily eliminate the sexual reproductive system whenever He wanted to. The Bible argues that, in the resurrection, sexual reproduction will cease also, so this is consistent with God's plan. My opponent continues to rant about how he finds the Genesis account absurd. Fine, mock what you will. My opponent dismisses one of my arguments because it is what I believe, not what the majority of my faith believes. However, my opponent is debating me, not the majority of religion. Earlier, he discredits argument ad populum, but then uses it when it works out to his advantage. This is contradictory reasoning. Contradictions of GodGod doesn't judge those who goes out of His plan, He judges them based on objective morality. I could follow this with the moral argument for God, but you still have my other arguments that you have left un-refuted, so I will not burden you with more than you can handle. ConclusionMy opponent cares more about straw-manning my arguments and ranting about his distaste for religion than he cares about providing rational responses to my claims.