The God Of The Bible Is Omnipotent

Sorry for my late response, I was having numerous tech issues. I'm sorry that I have circumvented the response possibility, however, this is the best I can do. Creation: The argument my opponent has put forward is predicated on the assumption that the being that created the universe is bound to the rule of time. I would put forward that there is no reason for this to be true. If this being created the universe, it is clearly in control of the rules in place, one of which is time. If the creator is in control of time, why is it bound by time? We may not be able to comprehend what life without time may be, but the creator is unbound by such restrictions seeing as he created them in the first place. Spacetime: Again, the point I would like to bring up from the creation argument is that God is not bound by the laws of our universe. As such, saying that God must have created everything through the big bang, as opposed to him having created the galaxies at distances from each other and allowing for expansion, is absolutely wrong. My opponent takes the big bang as the origin of our universe, when, if God does in fact exist, would not be the case. Let's look to Genesis 1:1-2 (NKJV) (https://www.biblegateway.com...) "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Clearly, the Earth is a distinct object from the very beginning. As such, the whole concept of the big bang doesn't apply to biblical creation. My opponent's arguments have no actual bearing on the debate at hand. Another problem I have is that he linked to a NASA web page saying "What's great is that we can go back in time by using the inverse of the Hubble Constant and see how long the universe has been expanding. Doing this indicates that space, and therefore time, were at one point very, very small, and as recent anisotropy probes have detected, there was a point when there was no space, therefore no time." However, when inspecting the link, I found no mention of the hubble constant, spacetime, or the lack of spacetime. My opponent has engaged in intellectual dishonesty or has accidentally linked the wrong thing. Also, when my opponent says "This also means that our universe's origin is also the origin of spacetime. When there was no universe, there was no space, therefore no time.", he misunderstands the big bang. The universe has always existed. If there were a time when there were no universe, given that, as my opponent has mentioned, causes are reliant on time and preexisting things, we must not take the concept of no universe seriously. Something (the universe), can't come from nothing (no universe). Also, my opponent says that causes are reliant on time, and then proceeds to say the universe was caused and time wasn't a factor in it's creation. My opponent has many contradictory statements within his first two arguments and, because of them, should lose the debate. Omnipotence Problem 1: My answer is that is capable of all 4 of these things, even if God applies them to himself. God, if he is omnipotent, is infinite. As such, the rules that govern infinite beings apply to God. So what are these rules? Well, imagine a universe infinite in size and full of infinite matter. Now imagine that a black hole has formed in it. This black hole will infinitely grow in size, infinitely consume matter until it has become infinite in size. However, the black hole will never encompass all of the matter. In fact, there will be infinite sections of the infinite universe that are never touched. This begs the question, did the black hole really happen? The answer is yes and no. It has an infinite impact and infinite nonexistence (compared to the rest of the universe). The black hole did and didn't happen. Applying these rules back to God, God is infinite, so he can both be moved and resist being moved. The seeming paradox here doesn't really apply, though I appreciate the uniqueness of the argument presented. Omnipotence Problem 2: 1. Why not? Infinite beings can do infinitely strange things. Normal rules don't apply to them, so why should this limit be placed on them? 2. He is incomprehensible in his full form, so he merely demonstrates a dumbed down version, which, as my opponent has demonstrated with his arguments, people have yet to fully comprehend. This dumbed down version can, however, be comprehended because it's not actually God. This therefore means that there is no negation here. 3. Um, no. If what God does is always correct, then he is unlimited, because he can do anything, and it suddenly becomes correct. Although this wouldn't happen, because God wouldn't contradict himself. To human eyes, he may appear to do so on occasion, however, all of these occasions can be explained as, in fact, unique occasions without "correctness precedent", if you will. 4. Again, the rules of this world don't apply to God, as my opponent admits here (which really makes me wonder why he tried to apply time to God). God can fly if he wants. He can apply rules to himself if he wants and remove them afterwards. It's not as if he is incapable of submitting part of his infinite self to these rules (see also, Jesus). 5. God can solve problems. If he can't encounter problems, wouldn't that be a problem for God? Wouldn't that be a difficult problem? Wouldn't that be something that he could, in fact, solve? Other Comments: My opponent has failed to address my original argument. His silence on the matter, given that he had plenty of time to argue it, means that he doesn't have an argument to present. Or, in my opponents style, Con was most certainly unable to overcome the proofs of omnipotence. One must vote Pro for this reason. Voting Issues: 1. The reality based arguments presented by Con are contradictory and uninformed. They are based on evidence that isn't what my opponent claims to be, nor are they based on a solid scientific understanding of the big bang, which my opponent proposes as the cause of the universe besides God. 2. I will stress again that my opponent lied to us during the debate. He presented evidence that was not relevant to the debate. Intentional or no, this blunder is strong reason to vote Pro. 3. My opponent's arguments (specifically his argument on causality and his argument based on flight) are directly contradictory. One can't be true if the other exists (my opponent, not being God, can't duck out of this one). 4. My opponent has failed to argue my original argument explicitly, and he hasn't shown any strains of an implicit argument, therefore he has conceded the point. For the above issues and my argumentation, Con should lose today's debate and Pro should win. I strongly urge a look at voting issue 2 as one of the main reasons for your decision.