God's Existence is More Plausible Than His Non-Existence.

First off I wish to address my opponent's accusation of my abusing of semantics. I defined omnipotent as an entity possessing unlimited power. Not only is this similar to his definition, I.E i'm agreeing with him, it's just better stated and actually backed up with a source.To completely clear up with this issue about omnipotence I would like to create a logical deduction for what it entails.P1. For a being to be omnipotent it must posses unlimited power.P2. To posses unlimited power nothing can restrict your power.P3. The inability to do the illogical is a restriction to power.C. To be omnipotent there can be no restrictions to power.P.1:Definition of omnipotent.P2:Definition of unlimited.P3:Failure to have power to do something, such as a failure to have power to do the illogical is a restriction to power.C:If a being cannot do the illogical it has a restriction to power and thus is not omnipotent.This is not a new argument, It does not show that a maximally great being is impossible, it just reinforces my first two points which then show that a maximally great being is impossible.Also, to my opponent's points about how it makes no sense to do the illogical, that's my entire point, it is illogical for a being to be omnipotent because it will rely upon certain logical coherence with it's power which adds restrictions to it's power making it not omnipotent. The fact that it is illogical supports my point, not the other way around.Free will argument:My opponent concedes that free will cannot be taken away but can be usurped. That is not the same as controlling humans. Any being imaginable can influence me, my opponent has influenced me by making this debate which has usurped some of my free will, but he does not control me. I have chosen not to concede all of his points in violation of his will. Since I can violate any theoretical maximally great beings desire for me it is impossible for it to force me to do anything, meaning that there is a restriction upon it's power (It's power ends at human free will) and thus it is no longer omnipotent and no longer a maximally great being. I would also like to point out that simply because the best choice at many times would be to do something and follow with influence of the higher power but I am not forced to do so. This has nothing to do with making rational decisions and more to do with common sense, but since I am not forced to do so, even if not doing so would be stupid, that mugger does not have absolute power over me, meaning that it is not omnipotent in that regard."He can't take that free will away, otherwise we would not be free moral agents. This doesn't mean he is incapable of taking it away"My opponent has made a contradiction of himself here. If he can't take it away it means he is not capable of taking it away. If god can take free will away at will then it is no longer free will, it is the ability to comply with God's wishes until he chooses otherwise. Which is by no means free will, which my opponent has conceded does in fact exist.Omnipotent does mean the ability to do everything. I have shown that through my opening logical deduction as well as just using the simple definition of the word omnipotent, if you do not have the power to do something because you have a limit upon your power, meaning you do not have limitless power.You did not justify your point about having complete control implies no control so I cannot address it other then to say that it's a major post hoc without justification.Argument 2: Omnipotence Paradox.Logically impossible argument: I have already addressed this, I will not rehash myself.My opponent did try and make a logical deduction here however:P1. God cannot do anything contrary to his perfect nature.P2. God is unlimited.P3. God is almighty in power.C. Since god is almighty in power so he can do anything that is logically possible or within his nature to do.That defeats the idea of omnipotence, since this god does not have the ability to do the logically impossible or something outside of his nature there is a limit upon his power, meaning his power is not limitless, meaning God fails to meet the criteria for omnipotence and is thus not omnipotent.Argument 1: KCA.Ex nihilo argument:It is impossible for there to be nothing. There was background energy before the Big Bang, which consolidated to form matter and the universe as we know it. If a maximally great being existed before the big bang then by definition there was something before the big bang and thus something was not created from nothing. All modern physics agree with this. With Heisensburg Uncertainty principle there are probabilities with the existence of matter and energy meaning you can create matter/energy out of nothing. Making an all powerful creator unnecessary. Also, if the theory of particles/anti-particles is true that would imply that with the creation of both the balance each other out they can be created from again literally nothing. [1]ex Nihilo works on two premises:1: Nothing can come from Nothing.I have refuted this by showing it can.2: There was nothing before the big bang.Even if all of science is wrong the great being was there before the big bang which is certainly not nothing, meaning again something was not created from nothing.Ex Nihilo argument fails.Intelligent Design:1. Chaos theory/Heisenburg's uncertainty theory imply that the universe is chaotic and not orderly.All of the laws of physics imply a large amount of entropy and it is very likely that we came to be simply by chance. This does not imply intelligent Design, it shows simple probabilities.2. Intelligence does not imply maximal power. I posses intelligence, I know the methods for creating certain objects, I am not maximally powerful. Even if intelligent design is true, which it probably isn't, the quality of being intelligent does not inherently mean the being is all powerful/benevolent/omnipotent etc. My opponent also claims that a sea of transient energy has not always existed. He provides no sources to back this up. But I have provided a source to show that something can come out of nothing. Something can come from nothing uncaused.Argument fails, also, argument is irrelevant since even if it succeeds completely, it only shows the creator is intelligent, not maximally great.Argument 2:1: Fails, I have shown a maximally great eing to be impossible.Rest:The ability to think about possible realities, does not imply that they are reality. Simply because it is possible (Not a concession) for a maximally great being to exist does not mean that it does. For example: it is possible that I am said maximally great being -> I am a maximally great being. It's a major post hoc that doesn't create results.You compare god to numbers, I agree god is real as an idea, just like numbers, but ideas are not necessarily true. There must be real world evidence to support the theory of which you are lacking. Argument 3: TCA:Virtually the same argument as the KCA, it shows there is a creator. It does not show this creator is maximally powerful etc. It also is based around the Ex Nihilo argument, I have rebutted all of these premises. I am running out of space and do not want to rehash but look to my arguments about the KCA.Conclusion:All pro has realistically shown to be plausable is that there is a creator of the universe (Although this is contested). Pro has claimed that this creator is intelligent without much justification and I have rebutted this point, regardless, pro has failed to prove the creator is maximally great failing the resolution. I have through two arguments shown a maximally great being to be logically incoherent, making it an implausible phenomenon. Pro has failed to meet burden of proof as a result of this and I believe I have won this debate.Thanks for the fun debate. Best of luck.[1]http://scienceblogs.com...