Logic suggest that some sort of creative, conscious God may exist . . .

My opponent argues a condition which I want to counter. He presents a definition of God which defines him as the creator of everything, including the laws of nature and the laws of logic. I suppose this is one valid presentation of a conscious creator of the universe, but I'm going to present a definition of God which doesn't REQUIRE him [God] to conform to this definition. In the set of all things that God can be, God can also be a conscious creator of the universe that created the universe, as in "arranged it" and "constructed it", but not necessarily a God that created the fundamental ESSENCE that makes-up the universe (i.e. space-time, energy), and it's very much possible that the laws of logic and laws of nature WERE NOT created by God, but exist NATURALLY and INDEPENDENT of a conscious creator, though the conscious creator can EFFECT THEM, MOLD THEM to some degree. EXAMPLE: Man is a conscious material construct. Man does not create the laws of nature and laws of logic, but man can still effect and mold the universe (transform it). The Set of all things that a CONSCIOUS CREATOR could be includes Gods that DID NOT create the laws of logic and of nature, but that can still modify the universe to a degree. Therefore the restrictive definition that my opponent places on God would apply to some Gods that might exist - but not all Gods that could exist and manipulate the fate of the universe. Despite my opponents definition of God, which applies to a category of things that can be categorized as God, and also have the capacity to manipulate the universe - (but not all, which he happily admits to in his Modal Ontological Argument(s) for Atheism ) - his argument, which he borrows from Ryan Stinger, is unsound with respect to different categories of God. This is because Ryan Stinger defines God as a being that, if he exist, exist in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS and UNIVERSES, beyond our own. I argue that this would not be true for all possible definitions of God. EXAMPLE: I sit at location X in California. I do not sit at location X on Mars. I therefore do not exist in all possible worlds and locations! APPLYING THIS TO ONE DEFINITION OF GOD - THE CASE OF PANTHEISM: God is the universe (pantheistic argument). The universe is everything INSIDE the universe. The universe excludes everything outside the universe (other universes).Thus God does not exist EVERYWHERE, but has boundaries. This is an example of a definition of God that that does not fall into Ryan Stinger's definition of God. Even more, there are already examples of beings that are conscious but are not in every possible world or universe: humans are examples of conscious beings with boundaries.It's possible that the God that manipulates this universe also has boundaries, much as humans do with respect to the extent of their manipulation. My opponent is wrong to say that no Gods exist because the logical argument he uses to defend his proposition does not apply to all possible Gods that could exist, as I demonstrated above (I will however concede that Ryan Stingers argument is valid for the particular definition of God which he proposes; though his definition of God is only a small subset of the greater set of all Gods that can exist that manipulate this universe). GROWING EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN: There is an active debate among scientists that recognize that our universe is just right for COMPLEX and INTELLIGENT BIOLOGICAL LIFE. One focal point of this debate is whether our universe was constructed by an intelligent designer(some scientists/philosophers even suggest that the UNIVERSE itself could be the conscious designer, and is possessed with a kind of basic consciousness that naturally exist in the mechanical fabric of the universe; Physicist Bernard Haisch, etc.) This possible "evidence" for an intelligent designer derives from the fact that so many of the universe's physical attributes are just right to support complex biological life. For example, if the electron mass was slightly less than what it is or slightly greater, it would be impossible for matter to congregate and to form the "matter" world we see today. A vital constituent of known biological life - water - would also be impossible. This is just one example out of many to support the growing dilemma in science that the universe may have been fined-tuned for biological life. Some scientists are trying to refute this argument now by claiming that our universe is one of countless universes (the "Mutli-verse hypothesis") but that ours happens to be one just right for life (this is a play on the "Anthropic Principle"); others claim that this scenario invites more assumptions that can never be verified. My opponent is wrong. Evidence shows that an intelligent designer is viable, even natural and necessarily possible if the universe is fundamentally possessed of consciousness, as some physicists claim. Even then, alternative Gods can exist that are not bounded by his definition!