God's Existence is More Plausible Than His Non-Existence.

I would like to define these two terms. They are similar to how my opponent defined them so I foresee no issues.Omnipotence: "An agency or force of unlimited power" [1]Free Will: "[The] capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." [2]With that said I will defend my two arguments.Argument 1: Free Will ArgumentPremise 1: Conceded.Premise 2: My opponent does understand what free will is although argues that it can be taken away in some cases. He is either incorrect in this assumption or if he is correct he has violated another aspect that this maximally great being must posses.1: Free will cannot be taken away.The only example my opponent created was that of being taken at gunpoint and told to complete a task, for example, run in circles. In all likelihood if this happened to me or most people they would comply, but there is no case in which free will is utterly mitigated. I still could if given the choice refuse to run in circles, attack my oppressor or do any number of things that were not intended by my oppressor. If you want to use the bible take Satan for example, he disobeyed God despite God's wishes exercising his free will. People sin every day which means all of them are acting against the will of God. (This is the definition of sin originally used in the old/new testimate [3]). I have proven that while you can influence people by creating consequences to actions you cannot literally force someone to preform some action. Meaning that this maximally great being does not posses power over this person/moral actor, meaning that they fail to meet the definition of omnipotent.If you prefer me to modify all previous statements about this Maximally Great being's inability to do certain things to: "It is not within his power" Consider it done. Overall means the same thing as not being able to complete certain tasks. Any semantics arguments on the part of my opponent have just been negated.Premise Sound2: If a maximally great being could take away free will it would cease to be maximally beneficial.My opponent has agreed that free will is inherent to humans so if this being were to remove this inherent characteristic it would be a violation of our own sovereignty as beings ourselves. My opponent's example is an excellent one, forcing someone at gunpoint to comply with orders is not a moral action, so if this being does the equivalent of this through removal of free will this being ceases to be maximally benevolent, violating another premise of it's definition.Resolution NegatedPremise 3:Read the simple definition for omnipotent. Unlimited power means there is nothing that limits your power. If this being has no power over human free will then free will is a limit to it's power meaning that it no longer posses unlimited power and thus is no longer omnipotent. If the being can't influence the illogical then this is yet another limit upon its power. If the being cannot make a circle 4 sided or create a rock it cannot lift then the illogical is a limit upon its power and thus it does not posses unlimited power.Premise Sound.-I simply want to point out that being almighty in power implies that you have power over everything, if you have the power over everything you should be able to complete every potential task.Conclusion: I have shown all premises to be sound. Argument is sound.Argument 2:Premise 1:I already talked about this. If there is a limit upon power then you are not all powerful. Pro actually makes a compelling case for my side here. This being has the limit of which it cannot be immoral meaning it does not posses that power, this means that it is yet again not all powerful. A being cannot wield all power and be unable to preform certain tasks. I believe I argue this more effectively in defense of my first argument and I do not wish to reiterate myself further. I have shown that being omnipotent gives you the power to do anything due to the lack of limits upon power.Premise sound.Premise 2:Simply because Alvin Plantinga overlooked the fact that an omnipotent being cannot have limits upon its power but inherently has limits upon it's power does not mean that it is a valid argument. I have said this three times now. There are inherent limits upon power which I have shown, this means the being cannot be omnipotent.Rebuttal:Argument 1: Kalam Argument.My point here is simply that because there is some creator of the universe this does not imply said creator is maximally great. It simply implies that it is a creator. You have not shown through this argument that your creator is maximally great. The cake analogy is simply to show the irrelevance of the point.First, I never said the universe is eternal, I have even submitted facts showing how literally "something" can come from nothing. But again, whatever causes it is not necessarily maximally great. You have not shown this. Also, you cannot simply assume the cause is intelligent. Should the cause be the big bang as I theorized, the cause is by no means intelligent.Second, the big bang or whatever created the universe was powerful, but not necessarily maximally so. To a microbe, the cake I may bake is the same size of the universe to us, but simply because this microbe cannot comprehend the power that is me, does not mean that I am maximally powerful. I also wish to point out that this is simply an argumentum ad ignorantium.Quantum Physics: The sea of transient energy has always been even before the big bang so far as we know meaning it could be the original cause. But yet again, simply because we don't know doesn't mean it is an all powerful being. Another argumentum ad ignorantium.Argument 2: The Ontological ArgumentPremise one fails as I have shown maximally great being to still be impossible.Premise two:Premise two fails since premise one has failed.Premise two also fails because the argument makes no sense, the only world we live in is this universe. Simply because you can imagine or think of this being does not mean that it in some way exists in an alternate reality of thinking. Simply because something can exist does not mean it does.Premise 4:See argument entitled Quantum physics. Also, to use this you must prove to me intelligent design. You have not done so. Also, you must prove to me that the starter is maximally great.Argument 3: Thomistic Cosmological ArgumentPremise 1:I will concede this premise due to a lack of relevance.Premise 4:You have failed to show us the first mover is maximally great.I again agree, something did start the universe, it wasn't necessarily maximally great. See past arguments.Argument is irrelevant.Conclusion:My opponent has simply failed to prove that the start of the big bang was a maximally great being. It was likely the everlasting energy that he refers to. That energy however is not maximally great. Unless my opponent can prove the "first mover" or "banger" of the big bang is maximally great I believe I have won this debate.Resolution Negated.I look forward to my opposition's rebuttal.[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...