The Christian god cannot logically exist.

Hello, socialpinko & all those reading. I will be your devil's advocate for today. While I'm not personally invested in my position, I hope to give you more than the usual "because the bible says so"-type responses. - My opponent has posted no opening arguments, but given his choice of word definitions and the number of times I have encountered this debate before, I feel I have a good chance at guessing the arguments he will likely be making. Therefore, rather than waste a round, I will address the assumed issues and my opponent may in the next round either confirm their accuracy and continue the discussion or correct me and the debate will begin anew. Typically, the "(Christian) God is illogical" advocates will highlight contradictions caused by traits attributed to said God. For example, the classic example of the omnipotent God creating a rock that it cannot lift. For the sake of convenience, I think it's acceptable to distill everything following these lines down to basically, "God is a logical contradiction." This way I don't have to address individual example scenarios. There are two approaches I could take in this debate, one of which owes to a missing clarification of what exactly the Christian God in question, is. - 1. Omnipotence is a self-empowering get-out clause. By definition, it is stated that omnipotence is not bound by logic. To support this as a possibility: as far as our human knowledge and cognitive abilities allow, we can't be sure that there isn't some truth - be it deep in the realm of mathematics or quantum physics - that allows for the extraordinary. Some other examples (which will hopefully be free of any automatic anti-religious bias) are: - The existence of the universe is also subject to paradoxes. If it came to exist, how did something come from nothing? If it's always been here, how can something exist stretching infinitely back in time - can something even exist without an origin? - The hard problems of consciousness have proven difficult to understand. We may understand how on a biological level light is converted into electrical signals of varying colour values - and on a higher level, a possible mathematical explanation of how the brain condenses the massive amounts of visual input it receives per second into something it can more easily process - but how exactly we come to consciously experience colour (see also: qualia) remains a mystery. Perhaps this also is a phenomenon with roots in areas that we've not yet uncovered. So to clarify my point: (a) omnipotence by definition is unbound by logic - and (b) if you find it initially hard to swallow, there are other areas where unknown truths may explain more tangible problems. As a slightly weaker argument, you may also question the intended use of the "omni-" words. Perhaps it was never intended to literally mean "can do absolutely anything conceivable, even in spite of itself" but rather just to poetically express the immense and realistic might of this divine entity. - 2. As the Christian God hasn't been completely described in this debate, the term's meaning in the debate is open to interpretation. If the term is intended to described the God REFERENCED by Christians and their bible, it'd be fallacious to draw conclusions and make statements regarding said God based on how it is described by humans. For all we know, the God could be very real, but his exact nature has just been wildly exaggerated and distorted by humans over time. If the term is intended to describe a God exactly as religious authorities claim, the above doesn't stand. Though in this case, one would have to question the relevance of arguing against a hypothetical construct taken literally from a book instead of the divine being believed in by religious persons of differing opinions and interpretations in the world. - This concludes my opening argument. I look forward to hearing my opponent's point of view.