The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

Hullo Opinionated Man. I'm the sort of chap who likes a debate to be friendly, nice and informal, so I shall introduce myself; I am ThaddeusRiver. I am British, 19 and was dropped on my head as a baby. I like long walks on the bea-... Thats probably too much information. Anyhoo, it would be nice if I got onto the debate sometime this week, so maybe I should start. (Sometimes I feel too much like a bizarre bumbling barabillus. Its a skill of mine) The resolution is "The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible". I am con. I'm saddened for you, my new and most dear friend, as you have created an exceptionally high burden of proof upon yourself. All I, as con, would need to do is show that there is even the tiniest sliver of a chance a god could exist to win. However, we are friends, what sort of friend would I be to not believe in you? In fact I would go as far as saying that I believe the power of friendship is magical, and together, we can do anything. What ho. A definition for what constitutes a God wasn't clearly given so unless my bestest buddy old pal has anyone objections I'll give it shotto. Off the old interwebs, I happenchanced upon this rather neat set of definitions [1] god n. 1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot. Lets start from the bottom (or if you aren't in the mood for the archbishop of Banterbury, skip to 1); 6. A powerful ruler or despot Clearly exists; http://en.wikipedia.org.... However, though I frequently get told I'm socially retarded, I must say I got the tiniest sort of impression this wasn't what he was talking about. Lets throw this definition out the window. *crash*. Shizzle, it hit an old lady on the head. I think she's dead. See you in a few days - I need to lay low for a bit. * 3 days later * Dayamn, I'm back. I may have murdered a cop who was chasing me for the other murder. Whoopsidaisy. I miss Daisy. I'm feeling very lackadaisical in that I lack Daisy right now. Onto 5 5. A very handsome man. Clearly exists; http://www.debate.org.... You want more proof; check out my many admirers [2] . Though... Opinionatedman didn't know me before we became friends when I accepted this debate. Lets put this definition aside, (gently does it - damn this headache, I need some painkillers). Jolly good. 4,3,2 I had to reduce the banter content for more argument content. Sorry old bean. On to 1; "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe This seems spiffing - but I propose one small changeroodlewho; we remove the second clause about monotheism, as quite evidently if multiple gods existed, a god would exist too, thus fulfilling my burden of proof. Right, now my lecturer is a total bumder and set quite a bit of work for me to be getting on with so I'll be Bach and you can be Mozart. Who am I kidding; I'll just be killing time. Hokai; to the meat and the meet of your argument my chum. Your 1st argument (A) is as such; 1. "God" would have to be infinite in all dimensions 2. Something which is infinite in each of these dimensions cannot be described as existing in them. Your second argument (B) is as follows; 1. People believe this entity which provides a moral code (and subsequently, must be a perfect source of this moral code). This is how your argument reads. However, us being such great friends, I know that what you meant was not that god must be benevolent because people believe he is, but rather, because it is part of an idea often presented as a god by such individuals. Please correct me if you did mean the former. 2. This moral code is a test 3. The test is unfair 4. A perfect God can not be unfair (implied – you didn’t state it) 5. Therefore God can not exist Okillidokilly - (A) now Why would a God, under any reasonable definition, necessarily need need to be infinite in all dimensions (x,y,z, time etc)? This was not explained in your argument. Secondly, it is an assertion without warrant that being infinite in a dimension means that the dimension does not apply to it. Surely if something has an infinite amount of quantity q, the attribute q is relevant to it? For example, take myself; I am infinitely awesome and cool (and sexy[2]). It would be absurd to say that I can not be described has having awesomeness because I am infinitely so. I reckon I'll cheekilly turn to (B) now; Your argument here was quite confusingly worded, so my interpretation of your argument above may be flawed. I’ll try my best to do you justice. (Also, I’ll try my best to do you, Justice. That’s right. Tonight, miss Justice, I’ll do you) The rebuttal here is that God may have a sufficient moral reason for not making everything equal or fair; it may not seem probable, but it certainly is possible, which fulfils my burden of evidence. There are more intelligent responses here about how it isn’t a test, but rather Hell is justice or how it is not necessarily an attribute of god to be just (as it could be a subjective human thingamagig), so a god could easily exist who is unfair by human standards, but I don’t really see the need so I won’t unless my opponent tears this argumentywhore down. Now to my rather self evident defence; A god, as defined, does not have any self contradictory elements; we may not have much or any evidence, but it certainly probably might maybe could exist. (This argument works 60% of the time 100% of the time) Luckilly it is your turn to respond.I've written you a poem;Thaddeusyour friendAte cheeseHe wasn't fond of itHe spookilly died [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; [2] http://www.debate.org...