It is more logical to assume that god exists than not

Thank you for instigating this debate. This will prove to be a challenge for me, a deist, because I don't believe in the Christian God, but instead that we'll wake up from some video game or something like The Matrix. (http://www.polygon.com...) My line of stance is this. Everything happens for a reason. We have two arms, not three for a reason. Some species died out for a reason (mainly being they couldn't adapt fast enough). In fact, we should assume everything is logical in a way we can't see yet, unless we have proof something isn't ( 2+2 will never equal 16 ). Therefore, it should be the assumption of all that God is logical, and it should be the duty of the CON to prove he is not. Next, I would like to challenge my opponent's definition of logic. I don't believe a dictionary definition would apply here, as my opponent's definition of logic tells us contradictions mean something is not logical. Then how about Schrodinger's Cat? It is one of history's most famed logical paradoxes in which both cases of the cat being alive and dead are perfectly, logically valid fitting the "criteria of validity". Saying Schrodinger's Cat is illogical would be defying ALL definitions of "logic" possible. The definition of logic should simply be thus: The use and study of valid reasoning. As long as an argument has a valid reasoning, even for each variation of contradiction, then it is logical, although in some very special cases not always true. I would recommend all viewers of this argument to read this site, as it shows many correlations to my arguments. http://mkaku.org... Arguments: A. It is foolish to think that we are "alone". There is never nothing. Everything leads to another. Bacteria led to multicell organisms. Multicell organisms grew fins, then legs. Likewise, there must have been something before the creation of our universe; it is only logical to think so. This is undeniable. Hence, it is foolish to think that our world is simply a complicated crossword puzzle of biology. All beings must have a creator, and God fits the bill perfectly. God may not have built us with his own hands, but he did set in motion of what would be us (ANALOGY: If we push a boulder down a hill and the boulder kills a person below, we are charged with a crime. Likewise, it can be logically assumed that God pushed the boulder of evolution down the hill of biology by creating our universe to create humans and all other life). B. We can be in a multi-dimensional state. While this is not meant to be in lieu of my argument, I would like to introduce a story of Flatlanders, adapted by internationally acclaimed and renowned physicists Michio Kaku and Edwin A. Abbott. "To understand some of the mind-bending features of higher dimensions, imagine a two-dimensional world, called Flatland (after Edwin A. Abbott"s celebrated novel) that resembles a world existing on a flat table-top. If one of the Flatlanders becomes lost, we can quickly scan all of Flatland, peering directly inside houses, buildings, and even concealed places. If one of the Flatlanders becomes sick, we can reach directly into their insides and perform surgery, without ever cutting their skin. If one of the Flatlanders is incarcerated in jail (which is a circle enclosing the Flatlander) we can simply peel the person off from Flatland into the third dimension and place the Flatlander back somewhere else. If we become more ambitious and stick our fingers and arms through Flatland, the Flatlanders would only see circles of flesh that hover around them, constantly changing shape and merging into other circles. And lastly, if we fling a Flatlander into our three dimensional world, the Flatlander can only see two dimensional cross sections of our world, i.e. a phantasmagoria of circles, squares, etc. which constantly change shape and merge. Now imagine that we are "three dimensional Flatlanders" being visited by a higher dimensional being. If we became lost, a higher dimensional being could scan our entire universe all at once, peering directly into the most tightly sealed hiding places. If we became sick, a higher dimensional being could reach into our insides and perform surgery without ever cutting our skin. If we were in a maximum-security, escape-proof jail, a higher dimensional being could simply "yank" us into a higher dimension and redeposit us back somewhere else. If higher dimensional beings stick their "fingers" into our universe, they would appear to us to be blobs of flesh which float above us and constantly merge and split apart. And lastly, if we are flung into hyperspace, we would see a collection of spheres, blobs, and polyhedra which suddenly appear, constantly change shape and color, and then mysteriously disappear. Higher dimensional people, therefore, would have powers similar to a god: they could walk through walls, disappear and reappear at will, reach into the strongest steel vaults, and see through buildings. They would be omniscient and omnipotent. Not surprisingly, speculation about higher dimensions has sparked enormous literary and artistic interest over the last hundred years." It is not improbable to think that God could be our creator, the creature from a higher dimension. We visualize him as someone looking like us because we can only comprehend 3D images. Just like how a Flatlander can't process nor visualize our arms, the best we can "see" God is to describe him like a human. He created us in his own image; that is, he drew himself in a lower dimension, like how we would draw a stick figure to represent ourselves. The stick figure would not be able to perform the same "miracles" as we can, but the figure is still "made in our image". It is important to us to remember that WE are made in GOD's image, NOT the other way around. Basically, we are a downgraded, preschool version of him. You might now be wondering about how the Bible and the Ten Commandments (and all the accompanying religious texts) were created. Just like how we can add words in front of a Flatlander's eyes to his astonishment, why can't God? Expounding upon my first argument, as everything must have a reason, God can be our reason for life. C. Benefit of the Doubt. As my opponent said, years, centuries, even millennia of doubting what we cannot sense has led us nowhere. At first we didn't believe in cells because we couldn't see them. So then we made up dances, rituals, and other "medications" that didn't affect nor heal diseases. Then we didn't believe in string theory because we couldn't detect strings. Decades of astrophysics work went down the drain when string theory was later supported. Why not give God the benefit of the doubt? If we believe him, and we follow what he say, but he doesn't exist, we have followed a life of sharing, helping, and cooperation. I would like to remind everyone that this debate is about the logicality in the assumption of God, not the proof of God. There is a thin red line that makes a world of difference. There is nothing to lose by believing in him, so why not? This is my constructive case. I will make my rebuttals in the next round, and I wish everyone enjoyed reading my arguments. Again, I would like to emphasize, this debate isn't a game of spotting errors in the Bible, it is debating about assuming in God. Thanks! ------------------------------ Sources: Flatlanders and a Higher Dimensional Being http://mkaku.org...