The Traditional God Can Exist

With The argument that a potential "stone outside of time" paradox, nothing major changes. By the nature of omnipotence One can remove it from themselves, but as i stated in my first argument God would never do so. I was saying that God could make a stone he couldn't lift, but wouldn't. If something never occurs, than it doesn't matter weather you are outside or inside time, because there would be no effects. 2. If Something is to be created, than Time must Exist. If God were to create Something of physical Mass, than it must have some movement, and Time is basically just what we use to measure movement. Time is not a physical thing, it is just how we measure speed and such, so if any "stone" were to exist it would have physical Mass, i. e. movement, i. e. time --------- My opponent seems to have misunderstood My answer to his attack on Perfection. My opponent argues that by saying that we cannot understand perfection i have made no attack on his case. this is not so, If you read further into my argument you will see that we can theorize on why we exist, and i even gave an example that my opponent didn't answer to. Also, in pre-defense of my example, you must understand that the definition you put up for perfection does not totally agree with your case. By saying something is perfect it is "Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen," ect This argument fails to answer to my case, and i'll give you an example of why. Assume we have found the Perfect diamond. it is as diamond-like as is possible. Everything about it perfectly fits the description of "diamond". it is Not the perfect acorn. In fact it is about as un-acornlike as can be. Being Perfect Does not exclude the ability of other goodness being created, A perfect God could have reasons to Create things. -------- On all the further attacks on My case my opponent criticizes the idea of free- will. This is irrelevant to the debate at hand, and incorrect, for the following reasons. 1. My opponent is saying that Chemical reactions, and the like, cause all our actions. if you look at it further, cells govern those reactions, and atoms govern the cells, electrons govern the atoms, ect. , ect. Eventually we would get to a handful of things that are the smallest you could possibly go, which for the sake of my argument i will call "minis" These "minis" are all that there are, just arranged into different formations. if you look to what my opponent's argument is pointing to, you will see that there is no such thing as an "idea", a "book", or even a "human", there is only these minis just floating serenely. Consciousness, pain, joy, love, Do not exist, and we are not alive nor can we think, we are just electrons and atoms and "minis" doing what they do. As i believe i exist, at least as a Conscious entity That can think and feel pain, i am forced to conclude there is something Beyond the current facts Scientists are telling us. What they say is True, i have no doubt, but they are missing an integral part of the Puzzle, and because Of those reasons Free will Stands. On all my opponent's further attacks he just says that we wouldn't have free will if God made us, and so he, if he exists, is responsible for all the bad in the world, but this makes no sense based on his attack on free will, in which he points to the fact that we couldn't exist. --------- I would just like to say that I have enjoyed this debate Immensely and am looking foreward to my opponent's response.