There is a God.

Once again, in your thought experiment, you are the one who has created the paradox. You continue to assume that the power to fail is indeed a power. Creating a god who has every power INCLUDING is where the problem arises. Don't you understand that failing to do something is not an ability, its an inability? This is why omnipotence with reference to god refers to being able to do what you set out to do. God can set out to do ANYTHING if he so desires that doesn't lead to the sort of nonsense you refer. How can anything set out to do what would stop him doing it? It is like the question 'will my answer to this question be no?' Clearly there is no answer! The flaw there isn't in the nature of the question, it's in asking it. Likewise the flaw in your question is in the asking. Further, not only has it been demonstrated that there cannot be two gods, but the definition I am using is the correct one. You are the one changing definitions. Go back to St. Augustine in 'Citadel of God': "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." Augustine also points out that the definition rests upon what he wills, or what he sets out to do, as I have continually been reinforcing. My definition is not new, in fact; it is the original. As to your next point, I stress that (a) the pope has mot said he believes in evolution. He has simply said that it is consistent with the teachings of the Church. Which leads to (b) there is not proof of evolution at the moment. With reference to the chromosome you are discussing I wish to point out that it is NOT a proof because, if you examine ALL the findings you will notice that the fused chromosome is not equal to the two previous ape chromosomes (2A and 2B). There are approximately 150,000 bases in the fused chromosome that are missing from the ape's chromosomes, a fact yet to be accounted for. We an see, then that there is no proof yet. You may argue that evolution produced more bases with time, but this effectively undermines the original premise- it leaves us with no reason to believe that the fused chromosome does indeed come from apes. It is for this reason that we DO NOT YET HAVE PROOF of evolution. And yes, MOST evolutionary biologists do not yet believe we have found the link- I mean, what do you think they are employed to do? They are searching, that is their job. I am in full agreement with the pope. I do not deny that evolution may be correct. My original argument is that evolution is used as a substitute argument for God and the existence of life, when in fact this belief requires just as much faith as believing in God. Neither have the sort of proof that you desire. Also, when you look at the sheer probabilities involved in creating even a single strand of DNA from chance, you realise that after crunching the numbers, the probability of blind chance producing a strand of DNA is well below what statisticians define as impossible. Further than that, the chance it could make all the components for even the simplest life form, including the DNA, is millions upon millions times less. It seems to me, therefore that the belief in blind chance creating life, and evolution forming us humans is actually harder to believe than believing in an intelligent designer, especially when realising that the world contains so much evidence of intelligent design, such as the structure of the simplest living cell. Further on your discussion of the Big Bang, I too would like to be a bit of a "science guy" here. You refer to how the virtual particles popping in and out of existence could theoretically all align at the same time to produce the Big Bang. I question the existence of these virtual particles. From my understanding, our belief in these particles comes from derived mathematical formulae that requires an extra particle to fill the error gap. This was originally why they were theorised. However, if we apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, that at the atomic level we cannot accurately observe and calculate something because the act of observing changes the accuracy, we an easily account for the small error in the original mathematical, thus destroying the validity of the theory. They are also undetectable in every way, so we cannot apply three stages of proof to this particular idea either. Many professional physicists have come out and disagreed with the theory for many the same reasons. However, if we take your approach, we still have to account for a first cause. I agree that classical physics does not hold on the atomic level, but it only takes common sense to realise that the movement of the virtual particles themselves have to have a cause. A particle cannot decide that it wants to move, without something moving it. Further, you state that God does not have a first cause, a contradiction. But you must realise that one of the actions had to have been the first, and,thus, uncaused. We can't go back infinitely- you yourself said there was no time before the Big Bang. Therefore, one particular event had to have been the first. I have already shown this is impossible for a physical particle, so we have to look beyond the physical, giving us the explanation of a first mover, an omnipotent creator. There is no other explanation, unless you think that a particle could have the power of an almighty God which is, of course, ridiculous. Lets look briefly at something else you said: "In your example, why would everyone find my wife as beautiful as I do. Couldn't people just find my wife beautiful, due to her generally symmetrical face, but just a little less beautiful than I find her to be? Or more?" This is exactly what I was trying to say! If everyone perceives beauty differently, how an it be based on something mathematical? With your model of symmetry, it would imply everyone perceiving beauty the same, but, with your own words, this is not true. Thus we are lead back to my original argument. As to other points of beauty and infinity, I have already explained myself enough times, and am not going to waste space retyping it. God is metaphysical- he cannot be physical and he is certainly mot contingent as he is not dependant on anything else- otherwise he would not be God. As such you will never be satisfied with any answer to this question that anyone gives you. All responses that argue for God existence rely on logic and reason alone, and as he isn't physical your three stage proof can never be applied to God. The problem with what you believe, as can be observed through all your ideas, is that you would rather believe ANYTHING as long as God does not come into the equation. You put your faith in blind chance to create life, in unproven evolution to create humans with all their very distinct and unique features, the believe in a particle that is easily explained away (and is regularly done so) to show how the world came into being. You ignore the fact that for almost all of our race's history people have believes in the existence of a God because it MAKES THE MOST SENSE. Your beliefs on what makes the world how it is are all based on things that can be called absurd. We live in a world full of so much order, beauty and evidence of intelligent design, from the structure of simplest cell to the number of incredible factors that makes earth the only known planet capable of supporting life. All the facts necessary to support belief in an intelligent designer are right there, but you choose to ignore them. You have relies upon false scientific evidence, logical fallacies and creating impossible situations in order to try to prove my points wrong. You have provided no evidence to show inconclusively that there is no God. Regardless of whether I took on burden of proof or not, the new atheist movement is a minority in this world that is attempting to overthrow the idea common to all cultures, tribes, and civilisations throughout history- God and religion. If anything, it is you atheists who have something to prove. You consistently and repeatedly demand a physical or contingent on physical proof of God, despite my many attempts to explain that God, being outside the physical, cannot be proven with physical methods. All proofs of God, all notions to believe in him are based upon the use of logic and reason, some examples of which I have given, examples that actually fit in perfectly with all known scientific facts. I ask you, how do explain unnatural phenomena without the existence of God? How do explain miracles? How do explain that 10,000 witnesses swear that the sun began to fall one October in Fatima? How do you explain that Jesuit priests in Hiroshima left the area completely unaffected by the blast or the radiation, with many scientific tests performed on them? How do you explain a sample of Blood, Jesus' Blood, that every year, once a year, turns into a liquid, and back to a solid for the rest of the year? How do you explain the Eucharistic Host that bled, with many scientific tests confirming that the blood appeared out of the supposed piece of bread? How do you explain other phenomena, like a statue in Bolivia that BLEEDS? How can you explain away Jesus miracles, when there are hundreds more surviving eyewitness accounts of his miracles than of Caesar crossing the Rubicon? Your god, Science, cannot account for these things. The true God can. But you will ignore what I say. You will claim its all fake, or fraudulent. Because you will believe anything except God. And you will not believe in God until you get physical proof. Unless you open your mind to the possibility that some things are beyond this world, no-one is going to be able to help you find God. You're the only one stopping yourself from accepting the one fundamental truth: There is a God.