God Could Not Possibly Exist if he were to be Under Human Philosophies

I rushed my last round's points, so I may not have clarified my idea well enough. In a sentence: If something can violate truisms, then it can in fact exist, because it is a truism that it can't. Now, if we ask the age old question: "Could god create a stone so large, that he himself could not lift it?" We can find the exact limits of omnipotence. The answer, assuming essential omnipotence, is a bit much to wrap our heads around; God could make a stone so large that he could not lift it, and then he could lift it. Now, I really feel as though everyone reading this should spend a bit of time considering this, and ignore it's unintuitive nature. Focus on the logic behind it, please. Truisms are limited to that which is true. This is very clear, and so if anything violates them then they're existence seems impossible. However, there is far more to be considered here. Imagine if there was, in fact, a completely illogical world (keep reading, it will get better). In this world, there is very simply nothing that can be said of it. You can not say that a square circle could not exist in such a world, and you cannot say that an omnipotent being cannot exist in this world. Likewise, the suggestion that such an omnipotent being could not create a separate world that is bound by logic would be ill-informed. So, do you agree, Pro, that an illogical being could create a logical world? Maybe so (since absolutely anything can exist if truisms are not given authority), however nothing can violate truisms, so that hypothetical illogical world couldn't exist in the first place. At first glance, it looks like the case has been closed and that the debate surrounding truisms has been resolved, however this is laughably incorrect. I have successfully proved that a logical world, and an illogical world can coexist. Logic dictates this to be impossible, yet still insists its own limits. Using truisms to prove that truisms are infallible is circular logic. Pro must prove that logic is infallible without resorting to this circular logic. An impossible omnipotent being could create possibility for itself. Likewise, an omnipotent being can violate truisms without violating truisms, because saying that it can't would be a truism that the omnipotent being can violate. _______________________________________________________ As for duality, it appears that communication has been somewhat of an issue. My opponent has said that everything is equal to infinity, and this has not been proven. To clarify, everything is the universe. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov... My opponent has said that God must be a part of this universe, but there has been no evidence for this. Once again, God could simply be a label for all of the power, all of the good, and all of the intelligence that exists. The dual sides of those things do apply, and there has been no suggestion to the contrary. Is my opponent suggestion that the entirety of good, power, and intelligence, could not possibly exist? Because such is the nature of "God". So "God" doesn't have to be a separate entity with duality, but the very nature of duality within our universe. Is my opponent suggesting that there must be a duality to all of the dual sides? That everything has two sides, and there are two sides to those sides, and so forth? Proceed, Pro.