The Concept of Omnipotence Causes Logical Contradictions

Thanks, Pro.1. Rebuttal"To get to my final point, I need to start with the question of the origin of the universe. As of right now, there is no scientific explanation as to how the universe came to be. Yes, there is the Big Bang theory, which has been thoroughly vindicated[1], but even that cannot propose what caused the Bang. As far as the theory goes, a singularity either existed for all eternity until it suddenly expanded, or it popped into existence and immediately began to expand."I have no issue with this, it seems accurate enough."Proponents of theism would look at that and say, "How could that possibly happen without something causing it? How could it just happen, with no will behind it?"To which an atheist might respond, "It makes no more sense than your god existing without cause. Something had to make him exist the way he does."At this point, a theist might say, "God is all-powerful. He willed himself to exist the way he does."The atheist who responds with "it makes no more sense than your God existing without a cause" would be mislead. It's fairly easy to recognize that while everything that begins to exist has a cause, there's no reason to think that things which do not have beginnings should require a cause. As God (if He exists) did not have a beginning, it follows that He does not require a cause for His existence in the way that a finite universe does. I also have a bit of an issue with the proposed theistic response, "(God) willed himself to exist in the way He does". I'm not sure that's the case. How could a being will itself into existence? In order to this, the being would have to be nonexistent. But if the being was nonexistent, how could it will anything? It seems to me that it's more likely God exists necessarily. In other words, while our universe is contingent (it could exist or it could not exist), God couldn't not exist. In any case, this isn't the topic of our debate, so I'll move on."How could he do that? Deciding something implies that there is a period of time before the decided event takes place. You claim he's existed for all eternity. How could he have decided before the beginning of eternity that he wanted to exist the way he does? And even if he could do that, what willed him to exist in that pre-eternity state where he willed himself to exist in his eternity state? How can something cause itself? Things cannot cause themselves, because to cause something, they need to be in existence, and once they're in existence, something has naturally caused that."As I stated above, I agree that a being cannot will itself into existence. My opponent and I seem to have parallel thinking on this subject."When you're all powerful, you can transcend logic. Your arguments are invalid."Now, this conclusion might seem kind of silly, and I'm sure if I allowed my split personalities to keep typing the atheist half would say something to that effect, but it is true. Omnipotence literally denotes unlimited power. If one has unlimited power, one can break the rules of logic.. because they have infinite power."This is a critical mistake. Omnipotence by no means entails the ability to do the logically impossible. For example, an omnipotent being couldn't create a square circle, or a married bachelor. This presents no problem to the concept of omnipotence, however, as "square circles" and "married bachelors" aren't really coherent "things". Arguing that a being is not all-powerful if that being cannot create an incoherence (i.e. a square circle) would be like arguing that a being if not all-powerful if that being cannot create "nothing". A square circle is equivalent to nothing. It has no properties. But surely "nothing" cannot be created, as "nothing" is the absence of something. So, an omnipotent being who is unable to create "nothing" (square circles, married bachelors, etc.) remains an omnipotent being."So an omnipotent being can cause itself to exist, because it can say f*ck logic, because it's all powerful. If this is true, then it logically follows that when one is talking about an all powerful being, the odds of chance do not apply. We think of existence beginning in terms of one thing already in existence bringing another into existence. For instance, there is a chance that you will have a baby with another person (if you're a determinist, you would rather say that you either will or will not have a baby, and that you're just unable to determine that outcome as of yet), because you, as an already existing being, might cause another to come into existence, or you might not. This concept is broken by omnipotence; in omnipotence, the caused thing controls the cause. This would be like the baby controlling his parents having sex and fertilizing the egg that becomes him. It doesn't make sense, but when we're dealing with omnipotence, 'sense' can be transcended by infinite power. This fact creates some serious contradictions of logic, which I'll get into now."My opponent and I both agree (please correct me if I'm wrong) that an omnipotent being could not cause itself to exist. As for the rest of this statement, I don't really know what to say other than I think it's absurd (my opponent seems to think it is absurd as well). Of course a baby cannot control his parents to have sex and fertilize the egg that becomes him. And of course, in the same way, an omnipotent being cannot will itself into existence. But it clearly does not follow from this that there is some sort of contradiction with the concept of omnipotence."1) Infinite Gods" This entire argument hinges on the idea that an omnipotent being can will itself into existence, which I have repeatedly stated that I don't for a second affirm. It is a straw-man argument and the conclusion has no implications for the concept of omnipotence for reasons that have already been stated."2) Causing Oneself to Not Exist" Here again is a straw-man argument. I don't affirm that an omnipotent being could cause itself to not exist. As I stated earlier, it seems to me that if a God exists, then that God does not exist as a result of His willing Himself into existence, but rather He exists necessarily. If it's the case that God exists, and that this God exists necessarily, then it follows that God could not cause Himself to not exist. Again, am omnipotent being cannot do "nothing". A necessarily-existing being causing itself to cease to exist is just as much of an incoherence as a square circle or a married bachelor is, and so it is not a "thing" at all, but rather it is "nothing". Not being able to do "nothing" is by no means contradictory for an omnipotent being, as "nothing" is not a "thing" that a being can do.2. SummaryIn order to shoulder the burden of proof and win this debate, my opponent must show that there is a logical contradiction with the concept of omnipotence. Thus far, I have not seen any such logical contradiction presented, and as such the burden of proof is not being shouldered by my opponent.My opponent's entire argument hinges on the idea that an omnipotent being can do things that are logically impossible. As I have explained throughout my response, this is not the case. Things that are logically impossible (square circles, married bachelors, etc.) are not really "things" at all. They are "nothing". There is no contradiction with omnipotence here as it is absurd to think that an omnipotent being should create "nothing".I urge my opponent and any readers to take a look at this source: http://treesearch.org...Thank you.