A limitless god is impossible.

I would like to point out that the contender, yet again, regards to definitions in the epistemic sense; and not the metaphysical sense.<< But you have not explained why the definitions we use must be in the metaphysical sense or what you are qualified to make such a judgment. Until you do I have no reason to accept your conditions. I an not willing to accept your conditions without a reason. Regarding 2) In his reply, the contender claims that God is defined in the bible, and brings up a number of examples to back his claims. However, because the bible was written in a natural language, and most definitely not in a formal one; none of these definitions are well-ordered or even close to being objective.<< Again, what qualifies you to determine what definitions or languages are acceptable and which are not? IMO a natural language is better than a formal one, whatever that is. Why must the definitions we use be based on a formal language? >>Further on in his reply, the contender suggests that a natural language in not only adequate, but also necessary for defining God. The problem with this is obvious; that being, natural languages are subjective, as they are never defined using anything but themselves (which is a circular definition, which is never an objective definition).<< That simply is not true. It is only your opinion. The problem is not obvious. So far you have offered no evidence that a formal language is better than a natural one. It would help if you defined "formal language." > The reason it is necessary to use a formal language is because without a formal language, the definition can never be well-ordered, hence it can never be objective. (As for the specific formal language "I'm referring to", any one of them will do.)<< Tahtg is only your opinion, which I reject. IMO a definition can be better well-ordered using a naturel language theat people are familiar with. Regarding 3) >>The definition does not have to be in mathematical terms, it just has to be in objective terms. Coincidentally, every objective term can also be interpreted as a mathematical one (broad use of the term "mathematical").<< Again you have just pontificated and offer not reason(s) why. Remember I coujld be the poster child for "I"m from Missouri." In his reply, the contender states that metaphysical definitions cannot relate to God's existence, because God "is not a metaphysical being". This is obviously wrong, because anything that "exists" must, by definition, relate to metaphysics. That is the very purpose of metaphysics in general.<< That is not true either. Basically metaphysics concern the abstract. God is not an abstract being. He is well defined, although we will never fully understand Him or his nature. >>Later on in his reply, the contender claims that I need to bring "evidence" to support my claims (or in his words, "opinions"); demonstrating his lack of knowledge regarding the difference between a logical proof and an evidence-based proof. My proof is the former, not the latter; making evidence both obsolete and useless.<< You have not proved anything. So far all you have done is make statements you think are accurate and you have yet to offer you qualification that make your opinions better than mine. Regarding 5) Here; the contender expresses his confusion as to why I said that he would contradict himself later. In reply, I will quote what he had said in round one: "While your statement is true, what makes you think the God of the Bible is limitless? If He was we would not have a universe with life. What evidence do you have that God is only a notion and is limitless?" Regarding 8) >>Here, the contender states that a true god could not possibly be limited. Of course, this statement requires evidence; but even if it were true, it would only mean one thing: GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. << You also need too support your opinion that GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. >>If a limited god is impossible, and a god which isn't limited is impossible (as I have clearly proven), << You have proven no such thing. You continue to only offer your opinions. What makes you think the God of the Bible is limited? The Bible teaches that God is omnipotent, by any definition that say He is not limited. >>then there cannot be any god whatsoever.<< Only if your opinions are valid and you have offered no real evidence they are. The only objective evidence we have that God exists is the existence of matter and life. Matter cannot create itself out of nothing and even if matter is eternal, lifeless elements cannot be the source of even simple life. Actually DNA shows ther is no such thing as a simple life form even more evidence that our Creator is also an Intelligent designer. CONCLUSION Because my proof still holds, and because the contender has yet to pose a sound rebuttal for it; I can say with absolute certainty that I can rest my case. Whatever my opponent presents in the last round, I will ask him to keep it conclusive, as it's purpose is for closing remarks.<< ?First you have offered no proof. You have not explained why a formal language is better than a natural one. You have not explained why we must use metaphysical and arithmetic definitions and above all you have not presented your credentials as to why your opinions and are valid and better tha mind. In conclusion you have failed to explained why it is not necessary to have a Creator for the universe and for life.