The existence of God has a more logical infrastructure then the basis for unicorns

"first asserts that you can only disprove logic, logically, and therefore it is impossible. This is by far the most circular argument I've ever heard in my entire life. But that's not even the reason I'm going to claim that it's wrong. Luckily I'm creative enough to think of my own arguments instead mechanically applying fallacies to everything. The reason this notion should be rejected is that I don't need to logically disprove logic but rather ask a series of questions that render the logical agent with the burden to prove its concreteness. For example, Why should I be logical? What proves rationality to be truly rational? Who decides what's true and untrue? None of which have anything to with a logical stream of cognition." Seriously this is where my opponent starts attacking logic? Really is he dense or something, this debate is about whether god is more logical then unicorns, so the debate is about logic being a way to demonstrate god over unicorns and he attacks logic. Just wow. He also doesn't seem to have the remotest idea that something is not logical if it is fallacious, so it is utterly embarrassing that he would complain about me pointing out the logical fallacies when the argument is about whether a god is more logical then a unicorn. He tries to call straw man, however he didn't show how I misrepresented a unicorn, just that I did. It's not as if the common consensus for unicorns, is that it represents a God, and for him to claim that it does would be straw man itself. A unicorn that made the universe would not be a god, it would be a unicorn, it could be from another universe or what not. On motion To say that we don't know what happened would be ridiculous. I don't assert God because I feel like it, rather I logically deduce that something transcendent started the causal chain that led to motion. This is so far the only explanation. He then tries to say that a unicorn could have created the universe but obviously he is trying to apply the omnipotence of god to a unicorn which would then make the unicorn godlike. This concession isn't a rebuttal of the argument but rather a re-assignment of the physical label of God. God could take the shape of a unicorn or something gay like that but of corse he would still be God. We can't make assumptions about the world in which God lives. To say that you know for a fact that the same laws of physics apply in every state would be a blatant lie. Lol a transcendent being is the only explanation is a laughable at best statement. It could be multiverses, it could be a repeating universe, it could be a unicorn from another universe. Seriously, he has just asserted a transcendent being and named it god. There is no reason to take the god assumption anymore then the unicorn from another universe assumption. Though the multiverse and repeating universe hypothesis, are better explanations then both, why because they don't require anything other then we know what can exist. They just require a universe something we know can exist. So by Occam's razor they are better explanations. Another explanation which may be the best is that the universe is a brute fact. He is clearly just asserting that god is the only explanation. So in conclusion my opponent had the burden of proof, he failed to show any logical reason god is more reasonable. I can say just as easily that the universe must have been created by a unicorn from another universe. It is no more or less rational. He definitely has not begun to prove his assertion that a transcendent being was the best cause to the universe it was a blatant assertion.