Every one who believes in god delusional

**NOTE: I did not expect my opponent to regurgitate everything from -Google: What are the stupidest arguments against atheists -… Please, Con, at least read what you copy and paste. If you did and you found them as logical, I still blame you for wasting my time. I looked forward to a DEBATE, not a god damn list of arguments made by dumbasses you found on the web. "Classical theists did not believe that God could be 'defined.' They believed that it would contradict the transcendent nature of God for mere humans to define him."Here are several reasons for why this argument is logically fallible and contradictory:1) If something is undefined, it wouldn’t exist. Take the function y = 1/x for example. When x approaches 0, the curve becomes undefined and does not exist where x = 0. You cannot define what does not exist (e.g division by zero), and math describes how the universe works. Not only does this surface a contradiction with the proposal that god cannot be defined, but it also creates incoherence with the idea of god creating a universe that is contradictory to himself. 2) Inability to perceive the physical characteristics of a god does not coherently transcribe into something without definitions. Like Con has said, people describe god by what he does… God is defined by his actions. I described god like anyone else would, omniscient and omnipotent. God can do anything if he wills (omnipotent) and god knows all of time and space (omniscient). 3) Humans can perfectly conceive of something that cannot be visually imagined. Take an atom for example. The physical characteristics, the electrons and nucleus, of an atom cannot be correctly visualized, but the concept of the physics and behaviors of the atom can easily be conceived.Con assumes observations that undergo confirmation biases are equivalent to actual proof/evidence. Common logical fallacy… If faith was based on actual proof, there wouldn’t be controversial issues between religions/beliefs. Debate and conflict reside with hypothesis and observations, not facts. Only madmen deny facts.My opponent’s best answer to my question is… that it’s not a question? I’ve always assumed yes/no questions have only 2 answers: yes and no. Yes, I agree with con’s obvious statement that this is a contradiction… hence the word “paradox”!! The point is to reveal the inherit flaws of an omnipotent god. “A rock so heavy that god cannot lift” does not exist because omnipotence cannot exist, thus god is NOT all-powerful. I thank Con for stating the obvious. "Pro writes: 'Being omniscient would suggest that god knows everything that is going to happen, thus free will is nonexistent...' 1 simple answer is that the assumption is not necessarily true."Wtf… How is my statement an assumption… If my opponent had half a brain, he could easily see how it can be logically derived.“‘Free Will’ is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.”If humans have free will, it means s/he is a rational agent who has a capacity to CHOOSE a course of action from among various ALTERNATIVES [1]. An omniscient god would have seen and known every action of every living thing in the universe. This would be most aptly translated as such: God has either experienced every point in time, or is present at all points in time, and if an agent can choose from alternatives, it would mean God hasn’t experienced or be present at all points of time.It’s amusing how Con attacks Occam’s razor as a pragmatic tool rather than logical proof, when every argument he has made has always been logically flawed. It is not used to choose between 2 equal theories… That statement doesn’t even make sense. If there were 2 theories that are equal, there is nothing to choose between because they are the same. It is used to decide competing hypotheses based on many justifications, some of which are mathematical.Sigh, Ok… Here we go… Every one of these arguments is outdated and uses logical fallacies.The Cosmological Argument from Contingency:1. Fallacies of Presumption. This argument assumes existence requires explanation. Explanations were created by mankind. The universe existed before mankind.2. Incomplete Logic: There’s an explanation for all that exists. The universe exists and god is the explanation. God exists, so what is the explanation for god?Thomistic Variation of Cosmological Argument:1. Fallacies of Being a Dumbass: This argument is just plain retarded.The Kalam Cosmological Argument:1. Fallacies of Copying and Pasting: This is a restatement of The Cosmological Argument from Contingency. This just proves Con is either a vegetable or he doesn’t know what he’s throwing up in the air.The Moral Argument Based Upon Moral Values and Duties: I’m losing brain cells…1. Fallacies of Presumption: This argument assumes moral values and duties exist in reality/ a universal axiom.The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning:1. Fallacies of Presumption: This argument assumes the universe is based of “fine-tunings”. Fine-tunings are defined as acts of god. This argument requires the assumption that there is a god in order to prove… that there is a god?2. Appeal to Probability(?): I’m not sure what to call this, but this is a common misconception about events that seem highly unlikely to happen. Something that seems improbable can still happen. There are unlimited possibilities of how life can exist in a limitless universe. We assume the only way there is life is what already exists. Our conceivability is limited.Hopefully, Con might think for himself next round and not act like a vegetable. [1]http://plato.stanford.edu...