Natural Selection Disproves Theism

It appears there has been some confusion over definitions. I will respond in two ways, (first) that the definition is confusing and my interpretation of it was justified, (two) that my interpretation of the definition was more reasonable than pros and (three) the definition largely does not matter as pro's case fails either way (which I did actually argue partially for last round). Why my Interpretation of the Definition was BetterThe crux of this semantic confusion is under God's defined ability to "actualize any logical facts". Pro says this only means he can do the logical whereas I took it to mean he could make anything logical. I don't think pro is right that his definition was clear. While I do believe it's what he meant by the definition, viewers should only judge the debate by what the definition most obviously implies, and to me, it implies a different meaning to pro's. To "actualize" is to make happen, to make it be so. This doesn't really fit into pros meaning at all. I took it to mean God could actualize anything as a logical fact. Pros says no, but pros interpretation doesn't make much sense for what on earth would the "actualize" mean? How does God actualize logical facts? Aren't they already so? Aren't all facts actualized independent of God? If it's dependent on God, then that's conceding my definition. If it's independent of God, it makes no sense to say God actualizes logical facts because logical facts aren't a thing this God could actualize. God couldn't make facts, or have control over the laws of logic. It makes no sense to say he actualizes them. Saying that God can actualize any logical fact is like saying God has supreme control over logic and can make anything a logical fact. My view of the definition therefore makes much more sense than pros. I think pro was very ambiguous with his word usage. I believe my interpretation of the definition was not only justified, but a better interpretation than pros. Thus voters should still accept all my arguments that assumed an absolutest omnipotence.Definitions Aside....But as I stated last round, the resolution is unsound whichever definition you take. Whether God has absolute omnipotence (the ability to do absolutely anything), or just common omnipotence (the ability to do only, but all, things logical). Now, I don't think my initial objections only apply to omnipotence. For being above morality does not actually have to do with omnipotence at all. Viewers should remember that my argument parted at two different distinct points which the first was, that logic was irrelevant and the second that morality was irrelevant. The definition said nothing about morality except that God was all-good. This entails nothing about whether God is under or over morality. Pro seems to have missed that part. While much of my case focused on the definition of omnipotence, being above morality has little to do with it. Any definition of omnipotence we use, we can still add the premise that God is supremely over morality and not bound by it without making a contradiction.Morality is not logic. God can be bound by logic but not morality. As far as I can tell, pro ignores this fact and treats being over logic and being over morality as the same. While pro believes his definition entailed God was bound by logic, there is absolutely nothing in his definition that stated God was bound by morality. And indeed, there is little reason to hold that he is. The nature of morality is not something that could be binding to a maximally great God. That's because there's little reason to say morality has any completely objective status, which is something it would need have in order to be binding over God. Morality, rather, is a product of certain types of agency. Humans may produce a type of morality that is partially binding, but it all remains a conceptual idea or system that bares no actual weight in the absence of agency. Lesser agents such as animals or lower evolved humans, have a lesser morality. The more advanced we get, the higher degree of morality we have. The thing about morality though, is that, though it is partially binding to us, we're also binding to it. It requires agency and is dependent on agency. God is also an agent. God is also a much higher agent than humans, in fact, the highest being of all. As morality is a product of agency and God is the most maximally great agent, I would say morality has no binding to God. God is transcendent, all powerful, knowing and good. Good and bad, as a conception of agency, have little baring over God. This does not mean God is not all good. It just means nothing he does can be absolutely bad. Furthermore, if pro wants to limit God in his definition, it makes little sense to say natural selection disproves him because we would have already conceded that God may have to have partially crooked means of accomplishing ends. In other words, natural selection, while not something God would want in itself, may be necessary for God's purpose. Pro would have to argue that there is no possible world in which God's plan would require natural selection. I think this is a rather indefensible position. We could have no idea what greater good natural selection could accomplish or what God's nature is like. God, by definition, cannot be known from our subjective perspective. We make inferences about other beings from our own experience with beings. But the only experience with beings we have is with humans and lesser beings such as animals. We make our judgements on God based upon our bias experience with humans which is an obviously fallacious thing to do. How could you even strive to understand an infinite intelligence? If you did manage to grasp such a being, I don't think you could ever say you knew what kind of purposes it would put out on the world. A child questions his fathers motives in his ignorance and we recognize this is done from lack of understanding. However, there is no one to recognize the exact lack of understanding God. All we can know is that we can't understand God because that kind of being is just simply impossible to comprehend. When we take the incomprehensibility of a transcendent intelligence, we should immediately drop any notions that something like natural selection could disprove him.