God does not exist

I would like to remind the readers that my objective here is not to prove the existence of God but poke holes inside my opponents case. My opponent is left with the burden to fulfill the obligation of proving that 'God doesn't exist. ' My opponent started off by giving us a descriptive example of one of his arguments. "1. It is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist2. God is omnipotent3. Since an omnipotent being cannot exist we can conclude god does not exist. " In A1 my opponent gave us no reason whatsoever why we should assume that an omnipotent being can not exist. A3 also hinges on A1. For my opponents argument to stand up we must have reason why A1 is true. I can not accept my opponents definition of omnipotent. He used no paste or link to show his definition is valid as a source. The word may actually include more or less requirements so let's look at a verified source's definition. Looking at the second definition on Merriam's it says : 2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... This definition is more defined than the one provided by my opponent and it should be used throughout the remainder of the debate. My opponent continued on to say that his definitions failed to stand up against his argument but that is a fallacy. My opponent also made the assumption that God would create a more powerful being then Himself. I ask what makes that fact? Also what makes a being with infinite power absurd? My opponent also seems to imply that in this supernatural scenario that God could not move physical things without Him also being physical. God does not need to be physical to have logic or to move physical things even in a world made up of matter. Even if God is made up fully of matter then that still does not make Him unable to exist. Both my opponents definitions failed in being accurate and reliable. My opponent seems confident in concluding that matter, time, space, the universe and energy are all eternal but that's just speculative thought. My opponent then finds no viable evidence that God could exist when the religious say all that we see everyday shows God's existence. Pointing too that there could be numerous proofs for God's existence and we ignore them. Then my opponent's does calculations for us like 0 not equaling 1 but He forgets that God makes up 1. Therefore God starts us at 1 and then He creates equaling 2 which is viable, 1+1=2. We can not logically know that the universe has always existed without actual proof. Since we do not have actual proof that the universe is eternal then we wont discuss non-factual discourses. We should not take this debate into making non-fact based assertions. If an assertion is made then facts should support it. We can never determine that an omnibelovant and omniscience being cannot exist without proper evidence to determine so. It is reasonable to assume that this being would not create evil beings but it does not show any reasons why He couldn't. There is also no evidence that God created evil people. There are no reasons why God is malevolent for allowing evil. Furthermore evil is subjective and not conclusive so we can make no determination on evil without proper definitions or examples. My opponent has not shown any real solid evidence that a God could not exist. My opponent has failed to show that omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibelovent are impossible. I send it back over to my opponent.