God is alive

Omnipotence This is basically dropped. My opponent misunderstands it, I will put it into a few syllogisms for simplicities sake. In these syllogisms I will be assuming that God exists to show how much of a paradox this would be. P1: God is agreed to be omnipotent C1: God is omnipotent Now that we have established that God is omnipotent we can move on: P1: God is omnipotent P2: God can create a rock that nobody (including himself) can lift P3: God can lift anything C1: This is a paradox Demonstration of P1: This is conceded Demonstration of P2: God is omnipotent so he can do anything. Demonstration of P3: God is omnipotent so he can do anything. Demonstration of C1: Can God lift the rock? If he can lift the rock then he cannot do anything because he is unable to make an unliftable rock. If he cannot lift the unliftable rock then he is not omnipotent because he is unable to pick it up. Omniscience Jumping off the building is not his choice though. When I refer to the man that is going to jump off the building, can he decide not to jump off the building? The answer is no. God knows for a 100% fact that he will jump and therefore he cannot decide not to jump. This argument is often referred to as theological fatalism and just highlights the fact that the Bible is contradictory in its description of God (1). If the Bible is unable to consistently define God, then the Bible's description of God is false. If the Bible's description of God is false then how can we trust what the Bible is saying? Omniscience and free will are accepting as coinciding points in many major religions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism (2). This severely diminishes the possibility of a God since these 4 religions make up 4.94 billion people (5) out of the 7.3 billion people (4) and if this contradiction stands then this takes up 98.8% of the world's theists (3). I like this analogy made by my opponent: "I know you will reply to this argument it’s not forcing you to its just knowing what you're going to do and if you don't reply to this argument then it prove my point you have free will to do whatever you want despite what I know," Unfortunately, it fails. You have simply proven that I have free will (which I am not contesting). You do not know that I will respond, hence you are not omniscient. I never said that I had no free will, I merely said that omniscience and free will cannot coexist, and since you are not omniscient since you have conceded to not knowing whether or not I would respond this fails; showing me that I have free will, not that it coincides with omniscience. Big Bang My opponent rejects P1 stating that there was no matter before the Big Bang. My opponent requests that I explain how matter formed so I will: "... after the Big Bang ... the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions ... 10-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter ... they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy ... there was an asymmetry in favor of matter ... result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist ... the particles which began to dominate were those of matter ... were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle." (6) My opponent then objects P2 - clearly misunderstanding the term 'theory' as scientifically irrelevant. Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain (7) There are two words in the definition that I would like to highlight and point out: scientifically (a word that completely contests with my opponent's argument) and acceptable (an addition which goes against my opponent's argument even more). Since this is the official Merriam Webster definition, I believe that this proves beyond reasonable doubt, due to its well-known credibility (7), that a theory is more than just a random guess - and it is certainly scientific. The Big Bang may not have been tested but my opponent seems to have dropped all of the scientific evidence and sourcing I provided in the previous round to prove its likelihood and credibility. He then continues by contesting with C2 in regards to a God not creating a universe. I agree that this cannot be proven, but God cannot be either. God debates are on balance debates, meaning that we are debating on probability (not 100% fact) because I think we can both agree that we cannot prove or disprove God 100%. I extend out this argument since my opponent has not attacked it, merely stated that it cannot be proven - and should therefore be deemed false, which distorts my opponent's argument further since nothing he has said can be proven 100% true. Not even gravity can be proven 100% true (8), in fact it's considered to be a theory (8). It's interesting to note that my opponent deemed theories as something that is not scientific and just a guess. Is gravity just a random UNSCIENTIFIC guess? Further Demonstration Of P1: He says that I have used circular reasoning in describing the creation of the universe. I have not. I said that the Big Bang caused the universe and the instability of quantum fluctuations caused the Big Bang. This is not circular reasoning. Further Demonstration Of P2: He then attacks specific elements of my argument. Yes everything was squished into a very small space however as I said, at the time, everything was less than what everything is now. After the Big Bang a lot was created, and therefore, a lot has come since that point. I do admit that elements were created, but not by a God or an intelligent designer, by nature and in this case, the Big Bang. My opponent has used a YouTube video to attempt to prove that the Earth is ≤25,000 years old. This is insufficient and there is a significantly higher, and well supported, theory suggesting the contrary to this. "The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) [at a minimum]. This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples." (9) This proves that at the very least the Earth's age is 4.54 billions years old (9). If this is not enough proof, then it has been confirmed that there has been a 4.4 billion-year-old zircon rock found and accurately dated (10). My opponent has (again), shot himself in the foot. He says the following: "it is impossible to prove something happened 1. when you weren't there or born" My opponent was not born at the beginning of the universe so he does not know that God made it either. This just contradicts his case as well as mine. This debate is an on balance debate (as previously stated) and therefore it is a debate in regards to probability and possibility rather than absoloute fact. The Bible is an unrealiable source. It contains multiple inconsistencies and therefore its word should not be valued. I have already presented the inconsistency of omnipotence and omniscience however this is not all. "the second month, the seventeenth day of the month," (11) Noah's arc"the tenth month, on the first day of the month" (11) Noah's arc Sources (1)https://en.wikipedia.org... (2)https://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://www.calculatorsoup.com... (4)http://www.worldometers.info... (5)https://en.wikipedia.org... (6)http://umich.edu... (7)http://beta.merriam-webster.com...; (8)http://ncse.com...;(9)https://en.wikipedia.org...(10)http://www.livescience.com...(11)http://www.1001biblecontradictions.com...