Logic Analysis pt.II- These arguments disprove the existence of God

My voters, Con attacks me personally in this last round saying, "... my opponent has decided to engage in condescension and manipulation..." (An obvious ad hominem.) Then accuses me of making ad hominem attacks! Go back and read my arguments again... Did I once speak to the person? You will find that the answer is a resounding "no". I have attacked Con's argument and his argument alone. You may feel I have done so stridently and vociferously, but I trust that there is nothing wrong with that. The quote below will show the fundamental problem with Con's position. """ I have sought to disprove my opponent's assertion that my definition of God is a logical contradiction by using generally accepted science which reaches similar conclusions as my definition. """ This is a debate about a single syllogism which presents two facts and makes one conclusion. 1. Self-creation is impossible (presented by Pro in round 1 and accepted by Con) 2. God created everything that exists (presented by Con in round 1 and accepted by Pro) These two facts are in evidence, both have been accepted by Con, but they cannot both logically hold... Unless God doesn't exist! I accept Con's quote above as absolutely correct. The problem is, none of the science he presented denied either of the two facts above so the conclusion *must* still hold. What is Con's complaint? """ My opponent's contention is based on a logically impossible act, much like the omnipotence paradox. """ Of course it is! That is the only way to logically disprove something. I have shown that the existence of Con's God is logically impossible. ------------------------------------------------------------ The above is a complete summation of everything you need to know when voting. My opponent attacked me personally, and he was completely ineffective at destroying the syllogism. If you wish to read my responses the the rest of his last round, you can... but it really isn't necessary for the vote. """ In respecting the intelligence of the readers I will assume the majority of the readers will recognize my points have been clear """ Translation: Come on guys, you know that when I said "everything", I didn't really mean *everything*! Sorry Con, words mean something. "Everything" means everything. This isn't the only time during the debate that Con had trouble with definitions. """ In his first point labeled (0) in his R3 argument, my opponent clearly misunderstands my statement on his use of semantics. """ Apparently, my opponent, much like Humpty-Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass" (http://www.sabian.org...), expects for us to be able to divine his unconventional meaning when he uses a word. (This is not meant as an attack, merely an observation.) So what did my opponent really mean? I'll try and cut through the verbiage... """ I assert that God is the beginning and source of everything... Science recognizes that energy is eternal... ... and this energy was God. """ Con tells us that 1) God exists. 2) God created everything that exists. 3) God did not create himself. What are we supposed to make of such illogic? """ For God to exist as the creator of everything, he need not create himself as he is eternal. """ Special pleading again... I'll jump to where he addresses that. """ The problem with this assertion is that the circumstances surrounding everything but energy are empirical science. """ Please note kind voters that my opponent's definition in round one was not "God is energy" If he had said that, then the above would be relevant (and I wouldn't have accepted the debate.) What he said was that God created *everything*. His God is logically impossible. """ God is the beginning and source of everything. Note I have NEVER stated God "created" energy... """ The above is an obvious contradiction on Con's part. Con is telling us: 1) God is the beginning and source of *everything*. 2) God is not the beginning and source of energy. Both cannot be true Con, yet you kept asserting both as true. The first by definition, and the latter through the use of evidence. And on, and on. My opponent's argument was full of contradictions from round two on. God created everything! But God didn't create everything! You can't have it both ways Con.