Be it resolved that no God exists

Here are my rebuttals. Concessions My opponent has refuted me by telling the condition that there is a God because I am a God. But there are two problems here. One, if I were the God he thinks I am, I would be given a definitional challenge. No religion has been made for myself, so that's one. I only implied that I am a God by the fact that I can do things people claim gods to do, but I don't get worshiped for these acts. Definition posted would simply tell that carpalfingers is not a god. He may act like one, but he's not. Irrelevancies: Up until now, I still don't see how irrelevancies go with the nature of these debates. The motion is Be it resolved that no god exists. '. But here comes my opponent, telling me that I did some thing wrong, like having a wrong definition of a god. My question is, So What? I mean, so what that there are alot of concepts of Gods? There are alot of religions, and he's going to define every single version that exists? And besides, I already set a motion, and he's challenging the definition I gave? I am going to make the concession that I did have the Judeo-Christian god in mind, but thinking on, I realized it applied to all gods you can think of. No, I don't think a deist god exists, nor a pantheistic god is there, since it is scientifically and technically called the Universe. No questions asked. And with Zoroastrianism, clearly, my opponent over-intellectualized this debate to such a degree that he totally missed the arguments I posted. But I have a say on the omnipotence and Angra Mainyu. Goodness is relative, so it depends on whether that goodness is in the good or bad side. With the panentheistic god? It simply shows how confused the belief system is. We think there is a god, only to find out later that we won't know? Weird. Now, My opponent did hit what he calls Christian arguments. Clearly, this guy is Christian. I was born atheist by the way. Now, let's rebut. Omnipotence. One sided presentation. Even if I were to assume that there is an omnipotent god, this god would also know that all power is also bad power. So if he's talking about what omnipotence really is, it also means bad power. Also, his argument backfired on himself. If he has acknowledged that God cannot solve the problems because of us, we have seen god's end. He knows how to make trouble, but not how to end trouble. Also, if God helped Noah before, why not now? Omnipresence. Clearly, my opponent did not read the argument regarding this. He has not even rebutted this, but let me repeat my points. If god is omnipresent, he's saying that the person everywhere is god. So simply, everyone is a God by this example. But I'm not implying that there is a god by this reason. I'm simply exposing how erroneous the concept of omnipresent is. Omniscience. My opponent is not calm towards atheists. Maybe not even tolerant. No say on his rebuttal, but if God was truly omniscient, he wouldn't have made much mess. His disability to control us would simply tell us how bad a God really is. The beauty with atheism, ladies and gentlemen, is that we don't have to think that we are really causing our own suffering. There's just much crap in the world, so we make the best out of it. Omnibenevolence? My point here is that if angels came from God, angels are good, but Lucifer becomes Satan, even with free will, we can say God can choose by his free will to be bad. But for no known reason, God forces himself to do good. So, God did not create free choice. He had it! And last, his interpretations with religions. He may not have gotten the Schrodinger's God concept. He may be both good and bad, given that there is no sure answer, or no sure true god. His say that there is one correct answer, yet many versions of the answer simply implies that there is no sure answer, because they all look the same. Like in a test, wherein the choices to the answers are all the same. So, you have to feel what is correct. The rebuttal is not there, but by the fact that humanity has not truncated god's concept up until now. We're still not sure. So in the test, there should be a none of the above, because if you look at the image of the question, it looks like the choices are fooling you. And his refutation on killing is very flawed. He's not sure. I mean, in the Torah, in some part of Leviticus, it tells you to smite this, smite that blah blah. So, no killing huh? None, but killing in the name of God is the same for me as killing.