Divinity is real in some form

I. ConcessionMy opponent has conceded the debate the moment he accepted my definition. I will try to explain, in case some of you didn't understand my arguments. His claim is that I didn't prove divinity exists, because I didn't prove that god is omniscient and omnipotent. He then goes on to say this claim is generally accepted, which is unsubstantiated, and even if it were, it is not what were debating or what I believe. My opponent is under the illusion that I need to prove "divinity", which he confuses with god several times throughout this debate. Additionally, the opposition made an argument that "divinity isn't real as their are things which are greater than what can be conceived". This is drabble, and the opposition should clarify upon this, as it didn't make sense. By making that contention, he conceded that divinity exists as well. My opponents arguments can be summarized like this....- The BOP is failed as Pro didn't prove divinity is omnipresent or omnipotent (not the resolution, nonexistent bop, and my opponent made up this condition)(opponent conceded by basically admitting divinity exists)- Pro has to prove that there is nothing greater than divinity (Which makes no sense given divinity is the greatest thing that can be conceived) (LMAO at the opposition's fallacy, which conceded the debate again).- Pro has to prove what the greatest possible being is. (fallacy, not a part of the BOP, and debunked as this is conceding the greatest thing is)Now, as I will restate, my opponent has already conceded that divinity exists as he accepted the definition. He outright told me over PM he agrees the terminology is legit, so there's really no point in continuing debate. Yet, I will push forward and persevere to stamp out the rhetoric and fallacious equations within an argument my opponent truly didn't understand.II. Pro's understanding of conceivabilityThis is perhaps the biggest fallacy the opposition has commited himself towards, and the one I most fear the audience will buy. First of all, I must state, my opponent didn't read or have a clear understanding of the definition he affirmed too. The definition says the greatest thing that can be conceived. I am of the opinion that you can't conceive a omniescent and omniprescent god. He understands metaphysics all wrong if he thinks that. The Xenoic argument was that "divinity" was the solution to the problems we don't know. Or the "answers". If we can conceive a omniescient god (which my opponent said, once again conceding the debate), we can also conceive something much more moderate, such as nature being divine, reason being divine, or science being divine. Next time, my opponent should read and have an understanding of the word can. My opponent confused the word "greatest" possibility (which can be logically conceived), with "perfect" (which can't be logically conceived, as perfection is a sham).This alone is enough to forfeit the debate. I would highly appreciate it if the opposition would stop making up BOP "rules" which don't exist. The only thing I must prove is that divinity (in some shape or form) exists, and I already have won by him conceding that there are conceivable things. The existence theory disputation made by Kant, a philosopher I reffered my opponent to when he investigated on to my arguments, wasn't even brought up by my opponent, which shows me he doesn't understand the Social Hiearchy theory made by Augustine.III. Pro has to prove that there is nothing greater than the greatest thing we can conceiveOutrageous fallacy once again. I reffered him to all the works he needs to make his case, but he refused to read them, or is ommiting them from his arguments. The ontalogical argument resides on the fact that if something exists, then there is a reason upon why it exists. Which is funny, because what the opposition is saying, is that something can't be divine if there is something above it. Well, trying to make sense of this argument, one can easily conclude the explanation behind the highest conceivable thing at the moment is divinity. It's a hiearchy, and since all conceivable things have an answer behind them, all inconceivable things must have one as well. That "greatest" possible explanation is divine.My opponent needs to be clear on his contentions, and once again, he conceded the debate by admitting to a greatest possible thing. Based on a definition he affirmed both here and in PM.IV. Understanding of Augustines ArgumentIt's pretty evident that the opposition has failed to understand the theory, which makes this hard to contend, as I'm arguing points that don't relate to a contention I made. None the less, I will set the record straight. As for his statement that my contention was regarding "universal constraints can only be explained by the universe", he straw manned this, and this wasn't my point whatsoever. Let's start by looking at the first contention I made, which con dropped. All it said was there is an explanation behind all conceivable things, and whatever that is, is divine (reason, logic, man in the sky, universe itself). This is a truism, and well reasoned. The opposition responded to the text, but dropped the argument, making a claim that you can't jup from rock to tree (wtf!? This has no relevance).Now, on to point two of my opponents refutation, which is claiming I didn't understand the Augustinian argument (one I studied days on end), and made a lot of baseless straw mans and said I took stances I didn't actually state. Alright, so let's look at what the opposition has wrote. Augustine was reffering, and no, he didn't say equal to divinity (straw man), that for something to exist beyond the bounds of human reason, it must be explained through something greater conceived than humans themselves, or divinity (which has 100's of possible solutions besides god). Which is a truism once again, and my opponent should refrain from twisting the entire theory into one large straw man. Since the whole argument was one big block of blabber, based on one straw man made at the beggining of the stance, I feel no need to address it all. I advise my opponent to re-equate himself with the theory, as he has shown a lack of understanding regarding a very simple contention based on truths. Truths that went undisputed even after the straw man.V. Ciceric theoryThe opposition has denied the first premise, that humanity is capable of reasoning all problems eventually. Is he trying to say that humanity is incapable of reasoning with science and logic? That directly contradicts what my opponent said last round, where he straight up affirmed that nothing is above the bounds of human reason. I don't know whether to mark this as a concession or a mistake brought forward from not reviewing one's arguments. My opponent has affirmed that humanity isn't capable of scientifically explaining all problems, therefore, should provide a source on how science can't explain all things. Here's my source (I checked all links and mostly all agree with me) that science and reason can explain all things eventually.https://www.google.com...The opposition now has a BOP of his own to prove that humanity can't solve all problems with reason and logic. If he fails to do this, then he has definitely conceded the debate. As I said, if humanity can conceive all things, then humanity must be the greatest possible thing that can be conceived in the first place.VI. Xenoic and Aurrellic TheoryFallacy. His only contention was the one he made at the beggining, making an outrageous claim that we can conceive a omniescient and omnipotent god (which we can't, as one doesn't exist or can be conceived). Had my opponent given thought to the possibility of divinity existing within the universe itself? The Universe, in theory, encompasses all things, therefore is divine. The premise is affirmed. VII. Conclusion Throughout this debate, the opposition has made many concessions, affirmed to many things which unintentionally supported my case, and showed a lack of understanding to the theories put in front of him. There were dozens of scape goats on both my and the philosophers I used contentions, which built into large run on paragraphs built off of fallacies. Had my opponent put more effort and used the authors I gave him, he might of won this debate. Had he carefully read, and studied the books these authors wrote, he might not of argued on straw mans. Thank you for your time, and although we have one round to go, this debate is already over given you affirmed the definition. My resolution is affirmed. Divinity can be a number of things from humans, souls, reason, logic, science, nature, the universe, a unrealistic and unproven man sitting in the sky, or even a life cell. What's been proven without doubt, is that it exists.