A limitless god is impossible.

"First let me say I do not accept your definitions, especially since you have not provided a source for them nor have you presented any qualifications that that I should consider you more knowledgeable on this subject than I am. Regarding 2) >>In his rebuttal (it isn't entirely a rebuttal, he doesn't even openly disagree with anything I say; just adds something of his own), he states that the god of the bible is defined by the bible "in many ways".<< You are not 100 % wrong. but you seem to want to limit the definition of God to your way of thinking. I'm not sure I can define God and I doubt if you can either. To beleive in God itg is not necessary to define Him. If we take the 3 basic names of God it can help us better understand Him God: When you see "God" in the Bible, it is Elohim. Elohim is a plural noun with a singular meaning. It intrdouces the mystery of the Trinity. Elohim comes from a word that means "to swear." Ffrom this name we see God's covenant relationship with man. This covenant relationship is based on His love for man. When we see "God" in the Bible the emphasis is on love. LORD" When you see LORD in all caps, it is "Jehovah." Jehovah comes from the verb "to be", " and means One who is what He is." It was translated to Moses as I AM THAT I AM. Jehovah speaks of the expression of His being. Lord: Lord is "Adonai" and means "master" and expresses a personal relationship; between God in heaven and His people on earth. In this name God calls us into the closest and most enduring relationship to Himself. IMO His names define Him. His characteristics, compassionate, just, honorable, etc tell us more about how He treats His children. >>However, because the bible is written in a natural language, i.e. not a formal one; then the definitions brought up in the bible are subjective, and hence are not well-defined.<< IMO a natural language is not only adequate but necessary because that is what God used, and He did not give us something that most people would not be able to understand. The words I used are not subjective. they have definite meanings easily understood by all. Why is it necessary to use a formal language? What formal language are you referring to? >>Even though he pays regards to it, he does not at any stage attempt to refute the points presented in 2); so for the rest of this round, they will be treated as givens (unless he does attempt to refute them).<< As I sais you are not 100% wrong. >>Regarding 3) In his rebuttal, the contender states that a well-ordered definition does not have to be identical to those used in mathematics. It is clear that the contender is thinking of definitions in the epistemic sense, and not in the metaphysical/mathematical sense, i.e. definitions that we humans use to help identify terms and establish natural languages for communication.<< You have not shown why a definition must be in mathematical terms. I will ask again what are you qualifications to make such a statement? IMO, definitions in a metaphysical sense do not relate to a proper definition of anything except the metaphysical. God is not a metaphysical being. In my proof, the word "definition" is in the metaphysical sense, i.e. it IS the type of definition used in mathematics; or to be precise, the definitions used in mathematics are in fact the visual/informational manifestation of the more basal definitions, i.e. the connections which are what give meaning to concepts. The remainder of his rebuttal continues to regard to definitions in the epistemic sense, and hence is irrelevant to the proof.<< Your opinions are just that "your opinions. To be accepted opinions must have have some basis for being true. To date you have not provided any reason for me to accept them. You need to do 2 things; first show me why my reasoning is incorrect and second, provide the evidence that I need mathematical and metaphysical definitions to understand God. >>Regarding 5) The contender agrees with this step, even though he will slightly contradict himself about this subject on his reply to step 8).<< How? Regarding 8) The contender ultimately agrees that a limitless god cannot exist; and instead suggests that if a god exists, it must be limited. Because this is the movement I was supporting all along, and because the contender not only brings no rebuttal to this, but even agrees with me; I can say with certainty that I can rest my case.<< If I said that if God exist, it must be limited,then I have omitted something in my response. A true God could not be limited. Therefore you cant rest yet,. You also net to answer the 2 questions I posed to you. >>Of course, if you believe that God is limited, i.e. not omnipotent yet still immensely powerful; this proof becomes irrelevant.<< I do not believe God is not omnipotent. I am going to review my first response to see if that is what I actually said. If I ldid, it was unintentional.