Divinity is real in some form

I. PrefaceMy opponent has shown incapable of understanding what we're debating. Divinity is real in some form. Not that a omniprescent or omnipotent god exists. My opponent continues to state, that god can't exist because we can conceive a great and powerful god (which is a concession, as he's saying something greater can be conceived). My opponent, in making that contention, is once again conceding that divinity exists. I have never seen a debater concede so many times in one debate. He's trying to refute that the definition is not true. That's been his only contention so far. Let me rephrase. Divinity is the greatest thing that can be conceived. My opponent repeatedly states that we can conceive an omnipotent god, while I continue to tell him you can't. You cannot conceive something that doesn't have an answer behind it.I'm going to directly cite from Zarrottes debate. All things in earth have an answer behind them. My opponent is continuing to state we can conceive a perfect god. Which means my opponent must explain HOW we can conceive him. How does he work? Where does his power come from? How was he created? What does he look like? These questions can't be answered, or can be conceived. We can't conceive where gods power comes from. We can't conceive how he was created. My opponents argument is entirely based on the fallacy that we can conceive an omnipotent and omniprescent god (again, conceding the debate). I'll ask my opponent this, and one more time, how can us, as humans, explain how god was created or how he has his powers?Unless my opponent, who at this point, has absolutely no understanding of the Ontalogical argument, can explain how it's possible for an omniescent and omnipotent god can exist, then his entire argument is false. My opponent has this the other way around. It's HIM who has to prove a perfect god is conceivable. For something to be conceivable, you must explain every detail and how it can come to be. My opponent shouldn't of taken this debate without understanding the basic theory, which he admitted to me, and tried to build a case on such a large fallacy. Here is a PDF file explaining the exact same fallacy the opposition has commited. http://www.princeton.edu... http://www.debate.org...Let's not forget, everytime he affirms the definition of divinty (greatest possible thing conceivable), he is conceding that divinity exists. I am sick of refuting fallacies, and I'll try to talk to my opponent in PM after this round on why they are fallacies.II. Refutation of FallacyThis contention is pretty much a restatement of what I said before. My opponent wrote a whole paragraph on for something to be conceivable, it must be explained. Which leads us back to the same conclusion, that I have explained that science can conceive all things, therefore is divine, and that the universe contains all things, therefore, is divine. These things can be explained. We can explain these things in one sentence. "Humanity is divine, because we can reason everything in the world". "The Universe is divine, because it is a proxy term relating to all things that exist".My opponent, has been unable to prove that the definition is false. Unless my opponent, can argue against Oxford, that divinity isn't the greatest possible thing which can be conceived, he is conceding that divinity exists in some form. Which is why I am suggesting to my opponent, that he changes his course, and quick. This debate really comes down to whether there is a greatest conceivable thing on earth.Unless my opponent can prove that there isn't a greatest conceivable thing, then he is conceding that divinity exists. III. Straw Man Accusation I am certain the opposition is confused now. He keeps stating that a perfect being can be conceived, yet he's saying it's up to me to prove it. Which led him to accusing me of strawman. Listen, you brought up the contention that a perfect god can be conceived. It is up to YOU to prove and explain how this being exists. I never even planned on bringing god into this debate. Whenever you make a premise, it is up to you to prove it. Not the other way around. Prove that your assertion is true. My opponents ENTIRE argument now resides on proving a perfect god exists (which is a concession)So no, my statement isn't a straw man. You stated, not me, that we can conceive a perfect god (conceding the debate). If you make this claim, you must explain how a perfect god can possibly exist (which he can't), not me. There was so many fallacies in what my opponent said. IV. Restatement of Ciceric TheoryThis contention was completely dropped by my opponent, so I will restate what I said. Divinity is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived. I argued, that humans are capable of conceiving all things, therefore, are gods themselves. I asked my opponent, and very kindly, to prove that humans aren't capable of explaining all things. He hasn't, instead dropping this point. I provided a source and ample reasoning on why science is capable of proving all things, and my opponent simply could not refute this.So it stands true, since it was dropped, and if my opponent is unwilling or unable to prove why science can't explain all things, which it can, then the resolution is affirmed. Humans are gods themselves. Science is divine. I scoured my opponents entire argument for just one rebuttal regarding "humanity isn't capable of conceiving all things" (which even if he refuted this, he is still conceding that something greater than humans is divine). My resolution holds true, which is why I'll restate my contention.[P1] Humans are capable of explaining (conceiving) all things[P2] Divinity is the greatest thing that can be explained (conceived)[C1] Humans are divineCan my opponent prove that humans are incapable of explaining all things? He certainly hasn't so far. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed. Instead of doing this, my opponent has attempted to scapegoat the BOP. Everytime you make an assertion, and in this case, that humanity isn't capable of explaining all things, YOU are required to prove it.This point was dropped because my opponent thinks it's my responcibility to prove assertions he makes. (it's called a premise BOP, FYI)V. Reinstatement of the Xenoic TheoryThis entire contention was dropped. I encourage the readers to go back to his contention, and you'll notice he didn't make a single refutation for this argument. Here, I'll restate once again. The universe contains all things. The universe, is essentially, the container for all things that exist. If a perfect god exists (which he doesn't), he would exist within the universe. Therefore, Xeno is right, and the universe is the greatest thing that can be conceived.[P1] The universe contains all things that exist[P2] All conceivable (explainable) things exist within the universe [C2] The universe is the greatest possible thing in which can be conceived.My opponent, has the responcibility of actually refuting this time. He must prove, to negate this contention, that the universe doesn't contain all forms of existence. If he fails to do this, as he already has, then the resolution is affirmed.VI. Conclusion I have cited 5 different philosophers over the course of the debate, all with different ideas on what divinity is. I attempted to prove that at least one of these theories holds true. My opponent, unwilling to use Kant (if he had used K ant, he might of won), has tried to fight all 5 philosophers with one fallacy. That a perfect god can be explained.It's important my opponent understands that there is a difference between "conceive" and "imagine". People can imagine a perfect god. People can't conceive a perfect god, therefore, a perfect god doesn't exist (once again conceding the debate. I'm going to summarize each and every contention, and what my opponent needs to do to negate them.What the opposition needs to do to negate the resolutionC1: Prove that a perfect god can be explained (The entire fallacy in which his arguments are rooted)C2: Prove that science and reason aren't capable of explaining (conceiving) all things in the universeC3: Prove that the Universe, the "entity" that contains all existence, isn't the greatest conceivable thingMy opponent has failed to negate any of my contentions, and on the off chance he actually makes a non-fallacious argument, then I'll be unable to refute them. So, by the rules of debating, my opponent may not switch his arguments at this state of the game.VII. Video I found a video on the Ontalogical argument, and it brings light to this debate. The opposition has made the same fallacy which the video describes. He attempts to prove that a impossible world can exist in the real world, which is a fallacy. I encourage votes (you don't have to) to watch this video if you didn't understand Con's fallacy or why it was a fallacy.My favorite part was when the speaker says, "...you cannot use illogical arguments to disprove logical arguments for the existence of god". Which directly relates to when the opposition attempted to use a "perfect god" to disprove a logical argument on divinity, IE, a illogical argument attempting to disprove a logical one. I struck gold in finding this video. http://www.youtube.com...