Resolved: It is logically impossible for the Judeo-Christian Conception of God to Exist.

Intro The full resolution is "Resolved: It is logically impossible for the Judea-Christian conception of God to exist". The resolution states that the Christian God exists, until my opponent proves it is logically impossible for a deity which is eternal, omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present), and omniscient (all-knowing) to exist. My opponent has the BOP to prove a God with these attributes does not exist, it is not my BOP to prove they do exist. That is given until proven otherwise. In other words, God has these attributes until it is proven 1) He does not have these attributes or 2) He does not exist. My opponent is attempting the second option, to show God does not exist. It was never my burden to prove. It was my opponent's burden to disprove. My opponent has 1) failed to disprove God's omniscience, 2) failed to disprove God's omnipresence, and 3) failed to disprove God is eternal and 4) failed to disprove God's omnipotence. My opponent's conclusion is a God who is omnipotent could not have created the universe because He would not have any conception of what the Universe is. So, in order to defeat the conclusion, I had to prove God had a prior conception of the universe, and I could do so using God's attributes, listed above, simply because my opponent has not disproven them and never will be able to in the course of this debate. Now onto my case: Alleged Concessions Knowledge is obtained through the senses I never dropped this point. You can clearly see in the second paragraph of "The timeless God" I began with your quote and then went on to explain why it did not apply to God. Simply because I did not create an entire section devoted to this point does not mean I did not address it at all. Furthermore, since you did not disprove God's omniscience, God never obtained knowledge because He has always had all knowledge. Knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to creation Ok, makes sense. Prior Conception "Since the Bible claims that God created the universe and that he was outside of the universe prior to its conception, logically it would have been impossible for him to have any knowledge of the things that my opponent asserts that he created." Why would is it logically impossible? Can you not look into a bowl from outside a bowl? By being omnipresent, God exists everywhere and in all times as well as before, during, and after time. God exists within and outside of the universe. God will always be. God existed before and during the universe all "at once". Therefore, he had prior conception of the universe before the universe was created. God was exposed to matter "before" the universe was created simply because He existed within the universe. My opponent then cites Genesis 1 (the creation story), in order to disprove God's omniscience, but, they never logically prove why my round 2 syllogism is incorrect. That God knew before hand, and yet chose not to reveal his knowledge until afterwards. They simply restate their contention and accuse me of misrepresenting their position when, in fact, all I do was disprove their position. Your contention was God had to learn about His creation because He did not have this piece of knowledge beforehand, you never address why God could not have and simply chose not to reveal the knowledge. The timeless God My opponent here is committing a straw man fallacy. I apologize if the title in anyway confused my opponent but, I never claimed God was without time, I simply was claiming "He 1) existed before time and 2) is able to manipulate time (Isaiah 38:8); God has the capacity and does know all, He knows all that did not occur, did occur, is not occurring, is occurring, will not occur, and will occur all outside the scope of time[...]God knows everything all that occurred and will occur. God knows what He will do before He does it." God exists outside the scope of time (but, also within the scope of time). I was simply claiming God's conception of time radically differs from man's conception of time. Omniscience "His first argument is that the definition of God is a being who has all knowledge. He uses this to claim that my argument is false because it does not account for this fact. The problem with this analysis is that the goal of my argument is to prove that it is impossible for such a being to exist." Exactly, it was my opponent's goal to prove God could not be omniscient. They have not done so, therefore, God is omniscient. I must remind the readers it is not my burden to prove God is omniscient it is my opponent's burden to prove God is not omniscient. "cross-apply the two concessions that he makes as well as the Genesis argument that I apply above. Beings are required to gain knowledge through the senses. If a being does not have any senses, then he cannot gain any knowledge." God does not have to gain any knowledge because He already knows all. My opponent has, once again, failed to prove God does not know all. They have not responded to my attack against their Genesis argument. And the "two concessions" apply to gaining knowledge, God does not have to gain knowledge, He exists with all knowledge. "I have already proven that it is impossible to actually have knowledge without senses." My opponent is misrepresenting herself right her, their entire cases basically states it is impossible to GAIN knowledge without sense, not have knowledge. Is my opponent claiming a person in a coma cannot have knowledge? No, they have knowledge they just cannot acquire any more knowledge because they are in a coma. My opponent's source states you cannot acquire knowledge without senses, it says nothing of having knowledge without senses. Seeing how almost my opponent's entire case rests upon that single document, which does not support what my opponent has just said. Omnipresent My opponent drops most of my analysis on this point, "He encompasses all that exists, all which does not exist, and all that has the potential to exist. Since God exists in all places and non places, God knows everything. Existing in all times and non-times means God, to reiterate, already had a conception of the universe before creating the universe." My opponent states, "He could not have gained knowledge by being present everywhere because "everywhere" did not exist until after he created it. He had to have gained the knowledge somehow, but my opponent is not showing how he gained knowledge if nothing existed." Once again I will reiterate "He encompasses all[…]that has the potential to exist[…]exists in all places and non places[…]exists in all times and non-times[…]had a conception of the universe before creating the universe." God exists before and after He created the universe at once. My opponent has not disproven this concept. Possibility of knowing everything "Creation implies the spawning of original thought." No. Creation was the creation of the geo-physical universe, and everything inside of it, we live in today simply because that is what the purpose of Creation was. I mean if we are just going to make unsubstantiated claims… "If all knowledge existed prior to God's creation of the universe, then God did not actually create anything because he did not spawn the original thought; rather, the ideas of man, fish, insects, etc. already existed before God did." By being omniscient, God posse's all-knowledge. My opponent makes the rather unsubstantiated claim that knowledge existed before God, yet, provides no proof why this is true. Knowledge did not preempt God, God existed/exists with all knowledge. Furthermore, since God has the ability to perceive everything, due to his omnipresence, etc, to God everything already exists, just at a different point in time. Therefore, God knows of nothing that was not in existence (or it would exist), and God knows of everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), God would posses this above knowledge at any point of time and non-time.