The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

Your entire argument rests upon one point: As it cannot be logically proven, it cannot exist at all. I would state that this is incorrect. In fact, I would state that your entire way of looking at this proposition is coming from the wrong direction.Logic is, simply, is constrained to logic. The rocky example was to illustrate this. To say that Rocky is better than Rambo as Rocky made more money is to predicate that the only measurement of success is through financial gain. To say that God is not possible because there is a logical contradiction is to predicate that if something is irrational, it cannot exist. However, intuition and emotion are both independent of reason -- “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” is a famous quote accredited to Hume saying that Reason should actually come below the two. Although I believe we both disagree, there is no justification in saying that reason should subdue and remove all sense of emotion and intuition. Also, your semantic run is very nice, but I do not enjoy that you've ignored the debate topic. I shall agree, you can change these words with each other (although the definition of illogical is wrong, and dictionary.com is a horrible source, one which I write to weekly asking for them to change their definitions of words, of which I have done so regarding their third definition of illogical, and ask that you use the more accurate second definition on the list, namely, "a particular method of reasoning or argumentation", if not a new website), but I wish to refer you to the topic for debate."The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible" I apologise, but I cannot see the word "illogical" in the debate title, and would ask you to point it out to me.Also, I shall explain my quotes, seeing as it is unfair to give your explanation as the true answer:"God is rationally impossible" -> "God is not possible if we state that possibility is purely related to a particular method of reasoning or argumentation, and nothing else may have any effect. (from continuing the quote) However, if we accept that there are other ways to allow for something's existence, such as emotion or intuition, then we must accept that rational proof is not the only proof""God is logically impossible""God is not possible if we state that possibility is purely related to a particular method of reasoning or argumentation, and nothing else may have any effect. (from continuing the quote) However, if we accept that there are other ways to allow for something's existence, such as emotion or intuition, then we must accept that rational proof is not the only proof" "God's inexistence is not given, simply that, rrationally, one cannot defend the premise" "God's inexistence is not given, simply that, using a particular method of reasoning or argumentation, one cannot defend the premise"I hope this explains my position clearly.Also, I hope my opponent firstly explains whether he meant "a god" or "God" this time, and also why he talked about the misogynistic behaviour of a specific God if the former. And I expect us to follow the usual conduct of a debate where one does not introduce new arguments at the final round of the debate. Thank you.