There is a God.

Pardon the double negative but, the power to destroy oneself is not an inability. Are you unable to kill yourself? No, you have the ability to do so. Therefore, something with all abilities has the ability to destroy itself; forget trying to fail or attempting to not complete something. So please stop saying the try to fail thing, and how about start defending the try to destroy oneself thing?...yeah you won't touch that without your "set out to do" special pleading for your version of omnipotence. You say "How can anything set out to do what would stop him doing it?" Let's pretend someone sets out to kill armed police. The police would stop him from killing police by killing/shooting him. The man sets out to kill police, but this very action stops him from doing it. Stop making bogus claims. Oh and I understood your two god paradox, I was using the two gods as representations of our definitions of omnipotence, and I noticed you dodged my question of whether or not something that actually has every power has more powers than something that only has powers it sets out to have. I usually don't cite things, because I present generally understood claims, but I realize not everyone is a linguist so, according to its etymology at etymonline.com omnipotent (adj.) early 14c., from Old French omnipotent "almighty, all-powerful" (11c.) or directly from Latin omnipotentem (nominative omnipotens) "all-powerful, almighty," from omnis "all" (see omni-) + potens (genitive potentis) "powerful" (see potent). Strictly only of God or a deity; general sense of "having absolute power or authority" is attested from 1590s. Why isn't there any mention of setting out to do something? If you check out etymologies of other words, you will see there are multiple meanings and derivations, because linguists try to put every detail about the word's history into it, but not omnipotent. Omnipotent is as direct from Latin as you can get. All + Powerful, that's it. If your definition is the original, why haven't linguists included that in the very history of the words they are studying? You go on to say "If you examine ALL the findings you will notice that the fused chromosome is not equal to the two previous ape chromosomes (2A and 2B). There are approximately 150,000 bases in the fused chromosome that are missing from the ape's chromosomes, a fact yet to be accounted for." Even if there were 150,000 base pairs on the human chromosome that do not appear in the ape chromosome, the unique genetic code only specific to those two ape chromosomes are in our genetics. Which is why we are considered modern apes. This fusion again is your transitional form as it has elements of ape (exact base pair matches) and elements of human (your 150,000 base pair number if it's correct). And I have to bring up something you said earlier in the debate"evolution has NOT been proven, as most evolutionary biologists agree" You realize that saying the majority of evolutionary biologists don't agree with evolution is like saying the majority of doctors don't agree with pathogenic theory, right? Tell me that the majority of legitimate physicians don't believe that microorganisms invade your body and make you ill. Doctors willingly study the facts of pathogenic theory for their entire college career as it explains modern medicine. This is the exact case with evolution. Evolutionary biologists who reject evolution are basically saying "The field that I am credible in is bogus. I'm glad I willingly spent 6 years and tons of money on something that I knew was untrue and that I also use to identify myself as authoritative on matters of the thing I believe to be untrue." The theory of evolution explains modern biology. Both pathogenic theory and the theory of evolution are facts. Also most biologists don't care about the idea of a "missing link" and here's why. I used to teach high school science and this was my favorite way to explain common ancestry as of course students would ask me if I believed in evolution. Let's take the languages of Spanish, Italian, and French. We know they are three different languages, they exist today, and have existed in history. We also know that these three languages come from a COMMON language, Latin (common ancestor, apes). How do we know this? When you look at the words, structure, syntax, phonemics, phonetics, and semantics of Latin, you find those exact same/similar characteristics in Spanish, French, and Italian, just like you find the exact same/similar genetic characteristics of apes in humans, homo habilis, and homo erectus. Not to misrepresent you, but I'm sure you believe that Spanish comes from Latin. What if I asked you, what's the missing link between Latin and Spanish? Do you know of Splatin? Or maybe you've heard of Latinish. Nope, no one has, and no one needs Splatin or Latinish (missing links) to explain that Spanish comes from Latin. You have enough evidence WITHOUT a transitional language to explain Spanish is a descendant of Latin. You might even call Spanish a modern Latin language, like we call humans modern apes. Furthermore when you keep demanding transitional forms you create an infinite god of the gaps argument, because if we were to find Splatin somewhere in our history, we then would create a new gap between Latin and Splatin, and a second new gap between Splatin and Spanish. If we find the next transitional languages, there would be four new gaps and so on. I'll bet you've never thought of language being evidence for evolution before, but it's such a good analogy. Randomness and low likelihood do not a negation make so your DNA argument is not amusing. Also the subatomic particles of nothing are not virtual, they're real and detectable, and--you'll probably like this--seem to always intermittently exist and not exist. Youtube Lawrence Krause's explanation of a universe from nothing. Again, "cause" just like"before" is a temporal concept that requires time to happen. It's the case that time can only exist relative to things being there for time to pass. So before the big bang, there was no time for causing to take place. It could also be that on the quantum level, like you said it doesn't follow classical physics, that there are uncaused causes, because things can exist and not exist at the same time. I never said beauty is only based on symmetry, and I even clarified that symmetry is not the only characteristic common to assessments of beauty. You keep creating a straw-man of my points. You said "If everyone perceives beauty differently, how an it be based on something mathematical?" Perception and mathematics are unrelated. Take a boxing match with judges. They use numbers (mathematics) to score the rounds of the fight. There are even strike counts to see who has hit someone more. Yet we find that each judge's score card--score cards are mathematically based as score is by definition a number--is different. But how can that be if it's based on mathematics? Two answers. One, there are other factors besides strike count that fit in to "better fighter". Two "better" is a qualitative adjective, so though the mathematics of the fight still occur, the qualitative parts of the fight, like ring control/dominance/technique, factor into the mathematical score. This is how we view symmetry. Most fights will be judged similarly, as most beauty will be judged similarly, especially when there is one very dominant opponent, or when there is one very attractive thing. You said "responses that argue for God existence rely on logic and reason alone" Would you agree that logic and reason are contingent on reality? So then their conclusions should be real or contingent on reality. You said "You ignore the fact that for almost all of our race's history people have believes in the existence of a God because it MAKES THE MOST SENSE. " Impressive. You were able to get, as I see it, three logical fallacies in one sentence. Argument ad populum, it's correct because almost all races have believed it. Argument from antiquity, it's correct because all of history shows belief. Begging the question, it's correct because it makes the most sense. Applause. You say "I ask you, how do explain unnatural phenomena without the existence of God?" Demonstrate something unnatural, and I may be able to answer your question. Oh yeah, stories from people aren't a demonstration of anything unnatural. Not even if you say it was thousands of people. Not even if you commit an argument from ignorance fallacy by saying if I can't explain something, therefore it's unnatural and requires a god. So if all these blood coming out of bread/liquid to solid blood claims are true, then you can demonstrate this idea to the James Randi Educational Foundation www.jref.org and win a million dollars in their challenge for anyone who can demonstrate miracles that are unnatural/supernatural and of the like. Science isn't my god just like social studies isn't my god, nor mathematics, nor linguistics. They're just tools. Really effective tools that provide us with reliable evidence over and over again. This doesn't make them god like, it just makes them useful. I reject the claim that there is a god because one hasn't been demonstrated, especially in this debate. You just set up a huge argument from ignorance proving that counter claims to god are wrong therefore god exists. You have to prove positives not negatives. Your claim that since standard of beauty exists therefore god exists had no support from anything you said, and it seems like a non sequitur. Omnipotence's self contradictory nature refutes an omnipotent god. Symmetry, proportions, patterns, distances, and widths all exist whether we label them or not. So even if the label of symmetry is a human construction, it exists and doesn't require a standard to appreciate it. We also don't need a superlative to give value to things. I still reject the claim a god exists.