The existance of God (philsophical debate)

Good day. There is no problem with passing infinite loops. In the unit circle analogy, you could also go backwards into -pi and -35pi, and so on. Of course, it's not a problem that in order to get to the angle 0, we must have passed an infinite amount of loops. (We do, because we could go infinitely far into the negative angles) The problem is just as non-existent when it comes to the unit circle, as when it comes to circular time. In both instances, it is recognized that there is an infinite amount of loops, where no point in a loop is only found in that specific loop. What loop we actually find ourselves in is irrelevant. Being omnipotent is to have maximum power, and power is quantitatively measured. You cannot get passed this by just stating that omnipotence is a quality. If anything, power is the quality, but it's still quantitatively measured. This means that the same old arguments you use against infinity can also be applied to omnipotence. You're only defense, as far as I see it, would be to commit to the view that there are only a finite amount of levels of power. Now this of course, would also be a problem for you, because I can always point to a new task (that is not a logical contradiction), and ask if god could perform it. Let me clarify my argument from earlier: P1: An omnipotent being is unable to perform tasks that lead to logical contradictions. P2: Creatio ex nihilo leads to logical contradictions. C: An omnipotent is unable to create the universe, ex nihilo. "God did not take nothing and turn it into the universe which is what you seem to be asserting. I am saying god created everything by his power, because his power has no limit it is infinite." Judging from the quote, your defense seems to be that God did not create the universe, ex nihilo, but in some other way. Then how? You really, really need to clarify your position here. Power is not something that, in itself, performs a task. It is simply what is needed to perform the task, but it alone cannot do anything. In the same way as omniscience is useless if there is nothing to be known, omnipotence is useless if there is nothing to be performed. We have already established that transitions from nothing to something is impossible, because then that "nothing" would not have been nothing. If you put an omnipotent being alone in nothingness there would be nothing to perform. "[...]if we get any kind of lifeless object and make it exist outside of time it could do anything because there would be no time there for it to do anything." This seems as an extraordinarily bold claim, and I very much doubt you have any basis for it. If you do, I would like an explanation. Regarding your last two paragraphs of round 2: All I said was that the last paragraphs, were irrelevant to Christianity specifically. If you read again, from the same paragraph you quoted me from, you will see that I did use the word "specifically". I wanted an argument for Christianity, because that is your religion. To give an analogy about your argument: P1: The shape of this object is such that it has three angles, and is two-dimensional. C: Therefore, the angles are 50, 50 and 80 degrees. While C certainly still could be true, there are also a bunch of other possibilities. You keep adding on stuff to the conclusions of your arguments. This must be avoided. As for the problem of induction, all you do is to assume that Christianity solves it. That is, you define the god you believe in, to be one that solves this problem. While your Kalam Cosmological argument has failed so far, even if it was true, nothing about it would help us solve the problem of induction. Relying on that the future will resemble the past, remains just as much a problem for you as it is for me. You are mistaken about me borrowing from the Christian world view, when appealing to logic. The three laws of logic, of which everything is deduced, are self-evident. That is, if you try to assume they are wrong, you are forced to assume they are true. I would recommend that you read Quine, or perhaps examine the arguments presented in this debate: https://www.debate.org...