Resolved: It is logically impossible for the Judeo-Christian Conception of God to Exist.

Key ConcessionsMy opponent drops a variety of important arguments that I made in my first speech. As per the rules that I outlined in round one, dropped arguments are treated as concessions, so for the remainder of the round, all of the arguments that he did not touch are treated as true. Concession 1: Knowledge is obtained through the senses. This was explained both through the conceded thought experiment as well as through the Mason analysis, which explains that the senses play an integral role in the acquisition of knowledge. This means that a being without senses could not obtain any knowledge whatsoever. Concession 2: Knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to creation. In order to create an object, I have to have knowledge of its necessary building blocks. I cannot build a sand castle without having a conception of sand, for example. At the most base level, I need langauge in order to describe to myself and to others what I wish to create. If no images exist and no languages exist, I cannot create anything because I do not have an ability to understand what anything is. Keep in mind that these concessions tie directly back to the rules that I set forth in Round 1. These are very logical rules for the acquisition of knowledge, and unless these guidelines are met, it is impossible for for an individual to gain knowledge and create something. General AttacksI will begin with a few general attacks on my opponent's case. First, he uses the Bible as a source by which to prove that God can defy the common bounds of logic. There are a few problems with this. First, the rules of this debate, as outlined in round 1, stipulate that God is bound by the rules of logic. This was something that my opponent conceded to with the mere act of accepting the debate. Second, the Bible cannot be used to prove that something is true; it can only be used to outline the Judeo- Christian conception of a specific idea. If my opponent wishes to prove that it is possilbe to have infinite logic without an exposure to any prior materials, he has to do so logically. He cannot use the Bible as a source to claim that it is possible because the Bible is not necessarily correct. In essence, the vast majority of my opponent's case rests on an appeal to authority logical fallacy, which in turn is based on a bare assertion fallacy. There is nothing in the Bible that logically proves that God is omniscient. Prior ConceptionMy opponent claims that I never proved that God did not have any prior conception of matter. This is completely false. The two key concessions that I have highlighted in the beginning of this speech prove that it is logically impossible for an individual to gain knowledge without being exposed to materials. Since the Bible claims that God created the universe and that he was outside of the universe prior to its conception, logically it would have been impossible for him to have any knowledge of the things that my opponent asserts that he created. If it is logically impossible to have knowledge in such a state, as the concessions indicate, then logically God could not have had the knowledge necessary to spark an action of Creation. Moreover, Genesis 1 actually refutes the notion that God is omniscient. Because God judged that his creations were good after he created them, he did not know prior to the creation that they were good. This means that God is not omniscient, or all knowing, because there were pieces of information that he did not possess. Similarly, God did not initially create a human companion for Adam; instead, he attempted to give Adam the animals as companions before he realized that Adam needed a female human. That further indicates that God is not omniscient because he did not have that information prior to his observations. So, the Bible itself proves that God is not all-knowing. My opponent misrepresents this argument by claiming that it does not prove that he did not have knowledge of the creation. That was not my contention; it was simply that God, like all beings, has to learn because he does not have all knowledge. TimelessnessMy opponent next claims that God is a timeless being. Note that this itself creates logical problems for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God. If God is timeless, then logically he could not have chosen to create anything. This is because the mere act of choice or thought requires time to exist; first, there is a state in which I did not choose to make a decision, and then there is a state in which I choose to make it, and finally there is a stage in which I choose to act on it. As you can see, actions require time in order to occcur. If time does not exist for God, then God could not have been the creator of the Universe because he could not have chosen to create. This means that the Judeo-Christian conception of the creator is not real if God truly is timeless. OmniscenceHis first argument is that the definition of God is a being who has all knowledge. He uses this to claim that my argument is false because it does not account for this fact. The problem with this analysis is that the goal of my argument is to prove that it is impossible for such a being to exist. Quite simply, I am not supposed to make illogical exceptions for such beings because my arguments are supposed to show that they do not exist. I am not certain why I have to make such exceptions. Second, please cross-apply the two concessions that he makes as well as the Genesis argument that I apply above. Beings are required to gain knowledge through the senses. If a being does not have any senses, then he cannot gain any knowledge. His only response is that God knows all. I have already proven that it is impossible to actually have knowledge without senses. He has not given you any logical proof that it is possible; in fact, he concedes that it is not but that God, by definition, has knowledge. If it is impossible to have any knowledge without senses and God has no senses, then by the definition of God, it is impossible for God to exist. Again, this is not really an argument. OmnipresentThe last thing that he tells you is that God is omnipresent so he knows everything. The problem with this is that according to the Bible, nothing existed until God created it. He could not have gained knowledge by being present everywhere because "everywhere" did not exist until after he created it. He had to have gained the knowledge somehow, but my opponent is not showing how he gained knowledge if nothing existed. Possibility of Knowing EverythingEven if I concede that God already knew everything, the Judeo-Christian conception of God still could not exist. This is because the Judeo-Christian conception of God is a being who created everything. Creation implies the spawning of original thought. If all knowledge existed prior to God's creation of the universe, then God did not actually create anything because he did not spawn the original thought; rather, the ideas of man, fish, insects, etc. already existed before God did. This emasculates God by stripping him of all creative powers and is directly in opposition to the Christian conception of God, who is the Creator of all things, including those thoughts. This places my opponent in a double bind. Either God had to learn, which is logically impossible, or he already knew everything and is thus not the true creator. In either case, the Judeo-Christian conception of God does not exist.