GodSand's "proof" of God is not logically valid

As for this debate, we are talking about the logical validity of *this* argument, not the existence of God. I would like to refer people to this debate if they wish to see the DNA argument discussed: . http://www.debate.org... Now, we get to my opponent's argument. In his response, the following arguments are made: 1. The proof that he provided may be too complex for atheists and agnostics to understand. 2. Nothing can prevent God from existing, so God must exist. 3. Analogy: A world champion athlete claims he can do 200 backflips at once and we should believe him. 4. Analogy correlation: God's omnipotence implies that nothing prohibits God from anything, and existence is one of those things, thus God must exist. After these points, my opponent then asks me to make my argument clearer. There are several others that branch off into other arguments. If my opponent wishes, I shall issue him more challenges, one for each of these irrelevant branches. I remind him and the audience that we are focusing on this particular argument for God. ********************************************************** Now that we have made a skeleton of my opponent's arguments, allow me to detail what will occur: 1. I will show that every statement my opponent made is either irrelevant except his thesis statement. In other words, I will show that in this round, he made no support for his case. 2. I will clarify my arguments for my opponent. First, my opponent's points: 1. Irrelevant. If there is a problem grasping something, we shall teach each other, just as I am trying to clarify things for you and you are trying to clarify things for me. 2. This is your thesis. I have disproven this through my arguments which you do not understand. I shall clarify later. 3. Incorrect. This is called "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. The fact that an expert says something does not make it true. Validity is inherent to the concept/argument/situation, not to the one explaining it. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Same as #2 Now, allow me to explain my argument so that you may understand. What you are saying is this: 1. God can do anything 2. Existing is a thing. 3. Therefore, God can do it. This is not your exact phrasing, but this is what it reduces down to. Essentially, you are arguing that God's omnipotence covers the act of existing. If God cannot be stopped from anything, then God cannot be stopped from existing and God must exist. This is a classic argument called the Ontological Argument. It has many variations. Generally, they are disproven by some key concepts from the philosopher Immanuel Kant. . http://en.wikipedia.org... What he says is that while your argument seems to be perfect, it's perfect because of an illusion of language. Meaning, it is true, but it doesn't MEAN anything. It is similar saying 1 = 1, and 2 = 2. An analogy: My super kitchen appliance can do lots and lots of things, but in order for it to do ANYTHING, it has to be plugged in. Similarly, God is defined to have a lot of characteristics. However, his characteristics only start to count when he exists. Thus, if you are trying to prove that God exists, you cannot say that since God has the power to exist, he exists. God has to exist FIRST, and after you prove that, THEN you can call his abilities into play. To be even simpler, I am saying that existence is not a characteristic. If you list the characteristics of something, you don't include "existence" in that list. The reasoning is illustrated by the unicorn example. What happens when you learn that a concept of yours has a new characteristic? If you find out your favorite shirt has a hole, then your concept of your favorite shirt gets an addition: the hole. Does this same reasoning happen when you talk about existence? No. The concept of a unicorn is "Horse with a horn in its forehead" and you are unsure of whether or not it exists. If you see a unicorn one day, then you know it exists. Does your concept change? Of course not. The concept does not become "Horse with a horn in its forehead that exists". So SOMETHING must have changed. The change occurs with different thinking. You linked the concept of the unicorn with the physical fact of the unicorn. Thus, this shows that existence is not a characteristic or definable trait. You cannot use God's omnipotence to show that God exists, just like how you cannot use a Super Kitchen appliance without plugging it in, or how you cannot add toppings on a pizza if the pizza has not been made. Your proof is not a proof. It is the result of bad English and poor philosophy, and this argument has been made and debunked for centuries already. With that, I rest my argument and await my opponent's response. Thank you.