God Exists.

Unfortuanlly this did not become the intelligent debate i hoped as Pro continues to misunderstand me, and, according to him, I misunderstand him. Looking at Pros 4th paragraph (starting with "That wasn't Con's point) i see many horrible misunderstandings. 1. that was my point. 2.Pro continues under the assumption i am using the classical stone paradox, which i admit is not true, my argument is that i can conceive a being that can create a stone heavy enough, which the first being could not or conceive a being capable of lifting the stone the first could not. 3. Pro is upset that i am conceiving a being more powerful than an omnipotent being, he fails to realize that my ability to do so proves that it was not an omnipotent being and that for any being i can conceive a greater being and therefore an omnipotent being is impossible. Going into the next paragraph (starting with "Con ignores") i would respond, but for any being i can conceive a greater being therefore, once again, an omnipotent being is impossible I said "yes I can conceive a force that can create a boulder God cannot move, I however cannot call this omnipotent because it falls into the same paradox" to which pro responded: "I really am trying to make this as clear as humanly possible. Con is saying that he can conceive of a force that could do a "task" that an omnipotent being couldn't do but this force is not omnipotent itself. This force would then be not omnipotent making it by definition less powerful than God. Yet, mysteriously, it is able to do a "task" that the most powerful being conceivable couldn't do. Seriously? This contention strains credulity past it's breaking point." In response to this i would like to apologize i should have said supposed God instead of god, and once again the fact i was able to conceive a greater being proves that the first being was not God and that greater being fails to be God for the same reason. As do all beings. Pro: "At this point I'm worried that Con doesn't understand what logical impossiblity is. Even if an omnipotent being *didn't* exist it would still be logically impossible to have a being more powerful than an omnipotent being. That is analytically true. That would be like Con saying that Con can conceive of a being who knows more than an omniscient being." my argument was that an omnipotent being is impossible because i can always conceive a more powerful one. Pro: "I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this. There *CANNOT* be a being that is more powerful than an omnipotent being! If there is a being more powerful than the god Con is conceiving then it is not the supreme being. Simple." i think that all of my other responses this round address this. Pro:"I specifically stated that any mention of God in this debate is as the supreme greatest conceivable being. So, with Con admitting that he wasn't referring to God in my sense with his argument(s) from greater conceivable beings he is basically admitting that his objection fall flat." that is why i made the note saying that my use of God changed but for the sake of semantics replace the word God with flying spaghetti monster i re-read the paragraph, the argument still holds value. I apologize for writing the same thing countless times but i had to clear up misunderstanding from every angle. I would like to remind voters that Pro has the burden of proof.