There is a God.

Let's try a thought experiment. I have two gods. Both are considered omnipotent. One of them can do literally anything and one of them can only do things that he sets out to do. Which one has more powers? If your definition of omnipotence is correct then we should choose the latter, because nothing can have more power than something that's truly omnipotent...but logically you must choose the former because being able to do anything requires more powers than only being able to do what you set out to do ergo the word potent still only means powerful and has no relation to setting out to do anything. You could be omnipotent and never set out to do anything, but the fact that you have the ability to use all powers, you remain omnipotent. Therefore, omnipotence doesn't mean all powers you set out to do. I reject that omnipotence is possible because it is a contradiction itself. Because In the realm of all powers that one could have includes the power to remove one's own omnipotence leaving one antithetical to oneself. I'm not letting you change the meaning of the word. Seriously, what is the obsession with infinity? I almost just want to do a debate on why infinity doesn't matter. Look, just because something has degrees, doesn't mean it is infinite. Also, why do you need the superlative to appreciate anything? Just because I've never seen the best super bowl doesn't mean I haven't witnessed awesome football games in other super bowls. Some even argue that there is no true qualitative superlative like the highest degree of beauty, or the best butt, or the nicest actress because qualitative has so many perspectives and factors that the definition of the qualitative adjective, like beautiful, changes such that no one can ever reach the superlative, because there will always be a perspective that finds even the most beautiful things less beautiful than someone else. You said "We as humans created the idea of symmetry this does not make something symmetrical regardless of whether we label it so or not." Yes it does. Symmetrical is just a word/concept we use to represent the actual physical proportion. This actual physical proportion exists even in nature whether we know what symmetry is or not. It's still physical proportions equal on both sides. Also, I would like to clarify that I think that symmetry is just one characteristic common to our judgments of beauty, not the whole idea of beauty; I was merely using symmetry to show objective physical pleasantness. Yes "equal physical proportions" is an intrinsic characteristic and not just a category we have invented. You said, "I don't know if you are married, but according to your idea of symmetry everyone would see your wife as beautiful as you do, so there would be nothing special about her beauty to you." I am married, and if everyone saw my wife as beautiful as I do, I would have pretty good confirmation that I landed a hotty for a wife and this would make me think that I have good taste in women, and no joke I just asked my wife sitting next to me right here and she said she would find that flattering. You know why? Because it's special to hear that everyone thinks your pretty. And that's what would be special about her beauty to me...it's universal. 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? Then I can't believe you said "Further, evolution has NOT been proven, as most evolutionary biologists agree, with the exception of extremists like Dawkins and, apparently, yourself." Seriously? Most EVOLUTIONARY biologists agree? That's like a marine biologist saying that there is no proof of an ocean. I thought here you might be faking your argument for a second. Either way, Dawkins isn't an extremist when it comes to biology. Dude even the pope believes in evolution as the explanation for biodiversity. I know using the pope is kind of a reverse appeal to authority, but accepting evolution isn't extreme. And here's why. You said "Darwin's 'The Origin of the species' he outlines that a transitional link would need to be provided to prove that humans are really descended form apes, a link that would show the change from one species to another." Human Chromosome 2. Done. Seriously research "Human Chromosome 2" objectively. To save you the google search, I'll give you my paraphrase of the facts. Normal chromosomes of species have a top telomere, a centromere, and a bottom telomere. So they look like T-C-T (Telomere-Centromere-Telomere). Every telomere and every centromere have a unique base pair sequence specific to it, kind of like fingerprints for humans. So if you found a certain base pair sequence you would know which chromosome you've found. Humans's 2nd chromosome looks like T-C-T-T-C-T. What is this? Well if you look at it, it's two chromosomes fused together. The bottom telomere of one fused to the top telomere of another. How could we determine if that's the case? The first T-C-T has the same exact base pairs as one of the ape chromosomes. The second T-C-T also has the exact base pairs of another ape chromosome. The fusion of two ape chromosomes to make our second chromosome is the link between us (modern apes) and the great apes, and you said it hasn't been proven. You also said "You yourself have used the word 'likely', which is not an 'accurate' prediction at all. " You realize that biologists predicted that there would be a fusion based on the framework of evolution, and there was one. Whether or not we use the word likely, the prediction was accurate, because it wasn't a random prediction, there was much evidence pointing in that direction. I'm glad you took the bait when you said, "Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal God could be a physical being? With all your obsession with scientific proof, how could you believe for a second that a physical God is possible?" No, I don't see how that god could be, and now you see why it's so ridiculous to do so. All things are either in physical reality, or are contingent on physical reality. Thoughts aren't necessarily physical, but the neurons and other brain chemicals are the physical reality thoughts are contingent on. Beauty isn't necessarily physical, but the physical entities we judge as beautiful are what beauty is contingent on. Your god is neither physical nor contingent on physical reality and therefore cannot be detected, and is by definition indistinguishable from a god that does not exist. So this idea of metaphysical just kinda whirls around in my head. If your saying that god is an idea or a thought, then it is the thoughts and ideas that are contingent on physical reality; god is not contingent on physical reality. I'm not requiring only physical explanations. I'll accept any contingent on physical explanations as well. Then you go to the big bang. and say "It is believed form the evidence that matter and antimatter split apart from nothingness, releasing energy which turned into mater, formed the basic subatomic particles and eventually cam together via gravity to form the universe. Like I said, this is just about proven. But what about before?" Ok so do you agree that to "before" is a temporal concept? "Before" requires time. Well time started at the big bang, which may mean that the question, "What happened before?" is nonsensical, because there would have to be time in order for a before to be. But check my avatar, I'm a science guy so I'll bite. To understand the big bang completely you need to know what nothingness is...something. That is, there really isn't nothingness, because even when you strip empty space of matter and energy, particles, and radiation, what is left is everything we understand nothing to be except there are subatomic particles popping in and out of existence which if they pop into existence at the same time and place as another they could build up energy and create matter. So this nothing is from which the big bang comes, according to my interpretation of leading scientists' work in the field. Mr. Newton's laws are different than those of quantum mechanics, the realm of nothingness about which we speak. Yes, Newton's laws of physics break down in the quantum world. Also a first causer is special pleading because you get to your first cause with a premise that all things need a cause and then arrive at your causer and say he needs no cause. To sum it up: Omnipotence is itself a contradiction which is why you keep thinking my heavy rock argument is begging the question because it illustrates the inherent contradiction in what omnipotence is. Symmetry is an actual physical proportion not bound by our understanding or labeling of it. Symmetry is also a general objective characteristic of attractiveness, not every characteristic...just one that doesn't need a standard. Enough with infinity. Evolution has been demonstrated, replicated, and used to make accurate predictions...seriously learn about human chromosome 2; it's fascinating. It's also that pesky transitional link anti-evolutionists claim that we can't find. We are modern apes anyway, a transitional form. Things are either physical or contingent on something physical; you're god isn't either of those and you thought I asked a ridiculous question when I asked could your god be physical...think about that. Your first causer needs a cause according to your line of causal reasoning otherwise you're special pleading your metaphysical magic man. My explanation for "before" the big bang needs not a first causer. It needs nothingness. Demonstrate please that your god is contingent on physical reality as you have continuously stated he is not physical. If you can do that, you win.