I am God.

I think you don't feel like there is any dispute as to what "I" am. You still think I am this body. 1. There are no separate "things" in reality (only in subjective experience). The boundaries between objects are not self-evident. Separate "objects" are much like the square in this picture: [IMG]http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp...[/IMG] Even if the particles seem to distiguish between objects, in reality they are a consistency. You can draw a circle around a "thing," but that circle doesn't exist. 2. This body, what you consider to be me, is a "thing." C. What "I" am is not separate from what the universe is. Ergo, I am the universe, and ominpresent. "There is a difference between knowing what its like to be able to do very little, and actually being able to do very little. This does not support any of your previous arguments." True. This doesn't support your claim that I am the latter, though. 1. Being is the truest sense of knowing. You probably assume that in order to know something, it has to be stored in your memory and available for conscious recollection by this body, and has to be capable of being translated into words. This is a human description of what knowing is. However, you know what it is to see, but you cannot describe it sufficiently with words. What you'll do is describe the process using arbitrary labels, such as "light," "eye," "brain" and "process." Then you would have to describe what these things are using other words, and it wouldn't end until you came down to such plainly arbitrary labels as "thing." The reason this is the working human definition is that in order to express what you know, even to yourself, you need to use absract labels. However, since "I" is not separate from "you," in reality, it is arguable that I know all there is to be known in this sense of the word. 2. I am the universe, in which there is nothing not included. C. I know everything in the truest sense of the word. "You are incapable of destroying or creating energy. All current scientific knowledge says that it is not possible for energy to be created or destroyed." So I'm incapable of doing the impossible, therefore not omnipotent? This is a technicality, and a weak definition of omnipotence, a thing which by this definition is intrinsically non-existent. If you think you deserve to win this debate under such a technicality (I claimed to be omnipotent, and your argument against this is stating that omnipotence is intrinsically non-existent), you are mistaken. I suppose I shouldn't have encouraged this argument from the beginning, and plainly stated what I meant by omnipotence. See, if God is capable of all things, then nothing can be impossible. But we know that things are indeed impossible. So capability of all things, including the impossible, cannot be a characteristic of God! Omnipotence seems to me to imply that something is capable of all things 'except' the impossible. This is a purely practical definiton of omnipotence for the fact that it isn't self-refuting, and therefore a completely useless word. 1. "Being" is a verb that implies the "doing" of self, completely and utterly. 2. I am the universe, and therefore "doing" all within it. C. I am capable of all things possible, and therefore omnipotent by the intended definition of the word. Believe me, I know this seems unfair, but this entire debate depends on a working definiton of God, which cannot include a self-refuting condition. Obviously since my resolution was that I am God, I intended God to be a condition that isn't self-refuting. Think of it this way: if God exists, he can only be doing what is possible. I am doing everything that is being done, and therefore am capable of the same things that God would be capable of. In a way, I am conceding, because you could argue that, depending on the definition of omnipotence (which is hardly disputable), I am admitting to not be God as defined. I move that this is a very weak case against me, however, as I intended omnipotence to not be self-refuting. In this sense you might consider yourself the victor on a technicality. In fact, I already touched on this point in the end of the last round. Would this be satisfying for you?