It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

To begin, my opponent presents three quotes of mine, saying that these quotes are concessions to the resolution. Far from it. I wrote that we cannot a priori rule out faith as the result of logic. My argument is that we can a posteriori rule out faith as a result of logic. I fear there has been some confusion regarding the above bold terms. A priori (meaning from the earlier) is knowledge that does not need experience. A posteriori (meaning from the latter) knowledge is knowledge that is gained after experience [1]. My argument is that after experiencing the arguments for believing in God, we can conclude that it is illogical to believe in God because the arguments are unsound. This is ruling out the arguments after experiencing them, therefore is a posteriori. Additionally, my opponent takes the third quote out of context. The full quote is "Next, my opponent presents some formal logic leading to an inference in God. While this could lead to faith for some, the logic itself is unsound because not all of the premises have to be true." The reason I said this could lead to faith for some, is that not all people take the time to logically analyze something. But under closer scrutiny, the argument falls apart because the premises are not true. Pro writes: "Dear opponent, you spent the entire debate arguing something entirely different than the topic resolution. I do not have the burden to challenge invalid objections. In fact, I have no burden at all anymore, since you've openly conceded that logic can lead to faith. Your entire burden was to negate this premise. You've committed suicide."Not so, my friend, not so. The topic of the resolution is whether it is logical to believe in God. It is entirely possible that an argument for the logicality of God could exist so we cannot rule it out a priori. My contention is that such an argument does not exist. This is completely in line with the resolution: I am arguing that no such argument exists, therefore it is illogical to believe in God. In no way have I surrendered. BoPMy opponent is correct: His burden of proof is to demonstrate arguments that will logically lead to a belief in God. To do this he must present sound arguments, because it is not logical (by definition) to follow an argument that is not sound.Pro's ArgumentsRound 1- Pro claims my only objection to his R1 argument was that not everyone believes this. This was not my main objection at all. My response to his argument was that it was not a valid argument. I wrote "My opponent argues that because something is impossible, it is therefore illogical. This is not a valid argument because something can be impossible and still be logical." My charge of invalidity was dropped, and therefore, conceded. Pro's round one argument falls.Round 2- Yet another case where my opponent has dropped my main objection to his argument, only in this case he attempts to revisit my objection after having dropped it in the previous round. I challenged Pro's logic as unsound because it is invalid: The conclusion does not come directly from the premises. His argument was that because something appears in nature and appears in the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God exists. This huge jump from the premises to the conclusion renders the argument invalid, and therefore, unsound. I argued this, and my argument was dropped.While my opponent did answer part of my challenge in this argument, he did not answer my challenge that the argument was unsound. Pro now claims I am trying to misdirect from his argument. This is not true, he really did drop my challenge of unsoundness.Voters: Go back and look through Pro's R3. Nowhere does he address my challenge of his Golden Ratio argument being unsound. Round 2 continued- I don't need to respond to this. It boils down to this: Faith be the basis for logic. Go back and look through my analysis of the definitions. I am not "attempting to censor the definitions set forth by the American dictionary." It is my opponent, rather, who is misusing the definitions.Round 3- Again, I found myself challenging the soundness of Pro's logic. And again, my challenge is dropped. Instead of responding to my reasoning on why his arguments were incorrect, my opponent focuses on the credentials of the person who came up with the logic. I have no doubts that Dr. Plantigna is a wonderful philosopher. But his argument does not do what my opponent says it does. I explained very clearly why this was the case, and my opponent dropped those arguments. Voters, take note. Rather than defend the argument he presented against my arguments, Pro simply goes over the qualifications of the person who invented it. My challenges were not refuted. And this feels like deja vu, but:Drops count as concessions. My opponent dropped my challenge of unsoundness, therefore, the argument is conceded.Final Rebuttal"Not part of the resolution. We resolved that logic can lead to faith, not that faith can lead to logic. Invalid."Exactly my point. Faith does not lead to logic. "Show me where it states this in the resolution, or did you by chance add this later?"In saying that it is logical to hold a belief, faith should not be used as a logical justification for faith, because that commits circular reasoning."Do you have proof for the origin of the universe?"No, but I don't need to have proof for the origin of the universe. Pro is committing the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance [2]. He is saying because you don't have an answer, then my answer must be correct.My opponent's criticism of my tooth fairy example proves my point exactly. He points out that I am jumping from something, to the tooth fairy. That was what I was trying to say. That's the end of my opponent's rebuttals.ConclusionMy opponent has provided three arguments for logicality in faith in the Judeo-Christian God. I have refuted all of these arguments as unsound and these refutations were never properly challenged.I thank my opponent for this debate.Voters: Please look through the debate and notice that when I say Pro dropped my argument, he really did drop my argument. Vote Con!!(Remember, Pro does not post any arguments next round.)Sources:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- http://www.fallacyfiles.org...