God is IMPOSSIBLE!

Since this round is the "rebuttal of the rebuttals" I will interpret that to mean that I get to rebuttal both of my opponent's rebuttals (his primary in R3, and his seconard in R4). I will start with his R3 rebuttal. First, I would like to point out that my opponent did not reject that those two points will make a God possible, only the existance of each point individually. So I only need to defend each point individually, rather than the entire premise. "Okay. I can agree that we can not control earthquakes or other natural things. However, these things are just part of nature and stuff that has been around for hundreds of millions of years." The rest of the first part is not relevent, since that point did not require that any natural disaster be caused by God, only that it is outside of our control. Remember, I'm not arguing that a God exists, only that it is possible for a God to exists, and one of the points was that a God controls some aspect of our lives, meaning that we don't control it. Showing that there are things do don't control, shows that the point is possible. Since the only way for it to be impossible would be for us to control everything. "This does NOT prove God." Of course it doesn't, that is not my burden in this debate. I only need to show that a generic God is possible, not real. "I do not understand your first supernatural argument. Your argument as a whole made no sense. Sorry if I misunderstood you." I'll break it down it to subpoints. 1) We know that there are multiple levels of authority (individual, government, nature...) 2) Nature is the highest known level of authority. 3) We know that we don't know everything. 4) There are things that we don't know (from 3). 5) It is possible that there is an authority or power that is above nature that we don't know (from 1 and 4). This means that it is possible that there are supernatural things (supernatural means "above nature") By showing that it is possible that there are supernatural things, and by showing that there are things we don't control, I've shown that it is possible for a God to exist. Again, I have not provided any evidence nor proof for a God's existance, since I'm not required to for this debate. On to my opponent's secondary rebbutals (R4) "Where do I get that phrase? THE BIBLE! Matthew 7:18 to be exact. So you are refuting yourself." This is a Strawman argument. At no time, did I use the bible in my arguments, and at no time, did I argue for the Christian God, as defined in the Bible. In fact, our agreed definitions from the get go, have been on a Generic God. 1 - 4 need no refutation, since they do not apply to the definition of a Generic God that we agreed upon. Also, at no point in the definition does it say that God was not created, only that God created the universe (in the first definition, though most of the arguing was focused on the second definition). Omniscient, as stated means "all knowing." But if we are in a village, and I am "all-owning" meaning that I own everything in the village. Does that mean I own $100,000,000,000,000,000.00? Probably not. Does that mean that I'm not all-owning? No, I simply own everything that can be owned. And to be all-knowing, one only needs to know everything that can be known. We can argue whether or not the future can be known, but given that we have free will, that future gets cloudier and cloudier the futher into it you go, and so it cannot be known with any degree of certainty. Nevertheless, based on the refutations from the 1st half of this post, I've shown that a being, fitting the agreed definition of God, is possible to exist. Thank you,