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

Framework My opponent claims that beause I have the Burden of Proof in this round, he can assert anything that he wishes and I must prove it to be untrue. This is false as per the rule that I outlined in Round 1 that noted that God must follow the rules of logic. If I logically prove that it is impossible for any being to gain knowledge without senses, then he cannot simply use the bare assertion fallacy to claim that God is omniscient. Rather, he has to logically prove that a being can gain knowledge without using any sensory experiences as implied by the rule in Round 1. My burden is not to to disprove God's Timelessness or potency. I simply have to pick one attribute and demonstrate that God does not have it because, according to my opponent, God has all of the attributes on the list. Therefore, if I demonstrate that it is impossible for a being to have one of the listed attributes, then the Judeo-Christian conception of God does not exist simply because he does not have that one important aspect of his nature. He needs all of the aspects to exist. Concessions 1. Knowledge is obtained through the senses. He tells us that he responded to this argument by claiming that God has always had knowledge. This is problematic because he never shows that it is possible to obtain any knowledge outside of the senses, whereas I proved that it was not. All he is doing is using the bare assertion fallacy to contend that I have to make illogical exceptions to my proof to fit the definition of God. Note that I also proved through the Genesis analysis that the Bible notes that God did not have all knowledge. This is why God had to search for a mate for Adam among the animals before he decided on Eve. Ergo, God did not have all knowledge and is not omniscient according to the Bible. He never even bothered to touch the Genesis analysis at all; insofar as this is true, God is not omniscienct and you can vote Pro. 2. He concedes that knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to Creation. So, if it is logically impossible for God to have knowledge since my opponent claims that he does not have senses, it would be logically impossible for him to create anything. TimelessnessMy opponent argues that I am strawmanning his argument because I showed that any being who existed outside of time would be unable to act. My opponent has become a moving target; he explicitly stated that God exists outside of time. As quoted from his second speech, "My opponent's logic attacks a God which is omnipotent but, not omniscient and eternal. God is totally omniscient in that he knows all which can be known by Him and God exists outside of time. Omniscience, by definition, is to know all thing's eternally. You see, the biblical God was planning "before time began" (2 Timothy 1:9) and "before the creation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). The biblical God predates time, and must have existed in a timeless reality. Therefore, it is completely evident that the biblical God is not bound to the restraints of time (Job 24:1). Since 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 conceived the universe's existence before the universe was in existence because he knows what will occur (the universe). God had knowledge He would create the universe before He created the universe. God had a conception of the universe before the universe was in existence therefore, He could have created the universe. Basically, God knows everything all that occurred and will occur. God knows what He will do before He does it."As you can see, my opponent explicitly stated earlier that before the Universe existed, God existed in a timeless reality by himself. Please do not permit him to change his advocacy. Given that he did not refute the argument that I presented against his analysis, since God is Timeless, it is impossilbe for him to have been responsible for Creation because he could not have acted. Insofar as this is true, even if I lose the rest of the analysis, you still vote Pro because God does not have the "Timelessness" attribute. Prior ConceptionHe next introduces a new argument that claims that God knows everything because he exists in all times and places, and was thus exposed to matter before matter existed. If this is true, however, God did not create matter because he was exposed to it before he created the Universe. That means that God is not the Creator and you can vote Pro because the Judeo-Christian concept of an original creator does not exist. His "bowl analogy" fails because the bowl has to actually exist for me to look at it. If there is no bowl in front of me, I cannot look inside of it. His analogy also implies that the Universe existed before God created it, meaning that God did not create the Universe. Omniscience He claims that it is my burden to include illogical exceptions to logical rules in my case unless I prove that God does not have those attributes. The problem with this analysis is that the rule in Round 1 explicitly states that God has to follow the rules of logic. If it is impossible to have knowledge without being exposed to materials and detecting those materials through the senses, then it is logically impossible for an individual outside of Time and who existed before anything else existed to have thought because there were no languages, images, etc. for him to experience. His only response to all of this is that I have a burden to prove that God is not omniscient. I already did this. My whole case demonstrates that it is illogical for an individual to have obtained knowledge if nothing else existed. His only response is a bare assertion fallacy that says that God is an exception to that rule. It is not my burden to make exceptions for God. If he wants to claim that a being can have knowledge outside of sensory experiences, then it is his burden to prove it because I explicitly proved that it is not. He cannot win this round on the back of a bare assertion fallacy. He is going to attempt to extend tha argument that he makes that claims that my case only proves that you cannot acquire knowledge without senses, and not that you cannot have knowledge without senses. The problem with this is that in my first speech, I specifically noted that knowledge has to be obtained through sensory experiences; I cannot describe anything or have thought unless I am exposed to it first. My case, then, explicitly proves that in order to have knowledge, one must acquire it through experience. He is attempting to use semantics to cover the lack of sustance in his responses.OmnipresenceHe claims that I dropped the point that noted that God exists everywehre. Even if I concede that God existed everywhere, including the future, that would simply mean that he could not have created the universe because it existed prior to his conception of it. My opponent is making a nonsensical claim that God went to the future, was exposed to the Universe, and then traveled back to the past and created it. This is impossible for several reasons. First, God is a Timeless being, so he cannot act and has no conception of time because he exists in a timeless reality. Second, if he had to be expoed to the Universe before he could create it, then he did not create the Universe because it already existed without his interference. The fact that he had to travel to the future to see it indicates that the Universe's materials existed independently of God. Possibility of Knowing EverythingHis only response to the emasculation analysis is that Creation implies geo-physical realities and not original thought. This is completely false. Intellectual property rights existed simply because the creation of anything, such as a story or an invention, implies that the creator had an original thought about the substance that he is creating. Plagiarism and academic dishonesty exist for the same reason.