I am God.

You see, Pro has just contradicted himself, and at the same time, proven his own definition of god wrong. Pro says: A thing is typically a collection of matter that is distinct from what it is not. I'm sure we all know, a keyboard is a thing. It has a specific pattern we can discern from other patterns. Things get complicated when one attempts to find their borders, however. The borders of a keyboard's existence seem simple in our experience, but they are nothing but arbitrary labels. In reality, nothing separates you from your keyboard. The keyboard is to the universe as a wave is to the ocean; so it is with all things. In reality there are no separate objects. In reality there are no separate events. These are all myths, or images with which we interpret the world. In reality, there is only a single and complete function of what we, under our roles in the universe, may call inter-dependent systems. When Pro speaks of the keyboard as an arbitrary label is irrelevant. On a molecular level, however, there are indeed separations between the keyboard and, for example, the air particles surrounding it. While these separations are not distinct, these separations are determined by the distance between the particles, as well as the different kind of particles. In any case, Pro avoids answering the question of omnipresence in this paragraph. I will restate my case here. If he was omnipresent and needed to use a physical form to use the keyboard, he would end up taking up all space in the known and unknown universe in doing so. Pro said: I encompass all areas of the universe. I even exist and yet don't at the same time. Condradictions are beyond me, you see; as I am all, that which exists implies that which doesn't. Why would one leave such things out of the equation? In saying the latter, Pro claims, in a sense, that he defies logic, which is not possible. He claims that, pardon me if I interpret this wrong, contradictions are irrelevant to him, but that is impossible in every sense. Even a god can not exist and not exist at the same time, for that defies logic, and logic is the basis for facts. As well, he says that he is all, and that he both exists and doesn't at once, so therefore, I am a god, existent and non-existent? Every argument presented in that paragraph is contradictory, and therefore, refutes itself. Pro said: I have created such rocks as you described over and again, more times than this role would care to count. As I mentioned in Round 1, this refutes the possibility of omnipotence, as he is incapable of lifting the rocks. Pro said: So have you, my friend, as you are merely a similar expression of the true self. Nothing in reality separates me from you. We are not omnipotent, or any of these things, however, under such roles as Josh and whatever you call yourself. There are many rocks we can't lift, and yet we are more than roles being played. This is how we create rocks we can't lift, and yet the true self is very capable of lifting such rocks. And at the same time, we are the true self, who cannot lift such rocks. As I said, contradictions are not beyond me, they are beyond human experience. As I mentioned earlier, there are separations on molecular levels. When he says we are not omnipotent, he contradicts his own definition of god, and therefore, isn't god. Next, my name is not Josh, and please address me in this debate as Con. I spoke earlier about the rock part, and what you say in this paragraph does not refute that. I said that you can not lift it at any point in your existence, which implies both the "true" self, and the "false" self. If you are able to lift the rock as another self, then you can still lift it, and you are still incapable of making a rock that you will never be able to lift. Back to you, Pro.