God does not exist

I appreciate the clarification he gave us about his argument. *Definitions My opponent never gave us any reference for the definition of omnipotent that was supplied by him. I find it irregular to create a definition from your own words to use in a debate format. More proper procedure is to supply a well known definition and source. So, I then offered a reliable source and definition for us to go by. My opponent then seemed to have a problem with my definition because I chose the second definition given instead of the first from my source. I agree with both definitions on Merriam's and hope this settles any definition concern for this debate. *Definition use My opponent admits to using his own prescribed definition. He claims that it is easier to understand but I think that a documented definition is satisfactory. My opponent would be correct to determine that God can do all things with matter, time and energy that is impossible to humans under the understanding of our definition of omnipotent. Under these definitions God created the use of circles and squares and therefore can use them any way He likes. Logic would therefore come from God and could also be changed or be improved by God. *Argument My opponent seems to give the acceptance of his definitions and also the dictionaries while also showing how God, who created time, space and matter, must also be contained inside those concepts. I suggest that God does not have to be contained inside what He has created. If space and matter were created by God then He would still exist even if they exist or not showing that He is outside those concepts. My opponent must show how these are impossibilities to God who is defined as creator and all-powerful. It is illogical to even think that an all-powerful God would create a God more powerful than Himself. Obviously that would diminish His own power and He would not be as He claims to be, all-powerful, all-knowing and eternal. It does not mean He can not create eternal beings as himself who are also all-powerful and knowing. My opponent must further explain why it is impossible for God to be able to create a more powerful being than Himself but just hasn't. My opponent never shows why God can not move things that He created. Considering that God made matter, He could be made up of it, He could be partly made up of it or He could be outside matter itself and be able to use it and become it at will. My opponents case fails because of the lack of arguing for why God is contained at all by creation. God could enter creation at anytime so it will do His will and also be outside of creation and make it do as His will. God is not bound by scientific and physical limitations. I do not argue against my opponents claim that something always existed because I believe it has. He has a harder time actually showing that the universe has always existed. Most scientist believe only particles of the universe existed and the Big-Bang started what we know today. My opponent must show by facts why space, time, matter and energy have always existed and eternal. I offer two logical arguments for the existence of God that my opponent can address. A1*Moral Argument M1) If god does not exist, then objective morals values do not exist. M2) Objective moral values exist. MC) God exists. A2*Ontological Argument O1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists. O2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. O3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. O4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. O5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. OC: Therefore, a maximally great being exists. *Assertions My opponent never gives us a reason as to why God is required to stay within our logic. He never gives any proof other than assertions as to why God is bound by His creations. My opponent can not assume that his logic is clear to everyone else. He must show with evidence and scientific terms that God does not exist. I have not seen any logic in any claim by my opponent that is supported by facts. If it is supported then he has not shown that support here. *No Sources In a debate of this magnitude my opponent must supply scientific evidence to support his logic. He tells us that he has supplied us with clear logic but hasn't given us any scientific support of this logic. I urge my opponent to deliver the evidence needed for us to take his logic seriously. He must show how God can not alter physical laws and logic.