God Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent

RebuttalYour argument bases strongly on God's ability to break human logic. As I have already stated, if we truly expect God to be omnipotent, then he should be able to do everything we mentioned above with limitations restricted upon him, as I pointed out in my green eggs and ham example. Based on the definition of omniscience, if God cannot possibly do everything I already stated while following human logic and understanding, then he is not omniscient. In simpler words, if God cannot eat "green eggs and ham" while in a "box", then he isn't omniscient. If God was truly omniscient, he'd take on the challenge of opening and closing of a door at the same exact time, as we think of "opening" and "closing" of the door. In conclusion as long as I can prove God unable to do a certain thing under a certain circumstance, he is not omniscient. If we get rid of his advantage in con's arguments-- his ability to go past human logic and understanding-- there is no way for God to be able to do any of these things, under any circumstance, because in paradoxes, things contrast each other and in human logic, there is no way out of these crazy, unfair situations. Because of the definition of omniscience, God must be able to break these paradoxes and follow human logic at the same time, otherwise I have succeeded in showing that God cannot do something, not fitting the definition of omniscience.I thank con for this debate and urge everyone to vote pro.This is a really interesting point, and a viable argument. In short, Pro's argument is that if God is truly omnipotent, he should be able to, within the realm of human logic, still successfully fulfill the above arguments. But within the realm of human logic, it is impossible to do that. This argument a good argument, but there is a flaw, which is underlined by this statement." as we think of "opening" and "closing" of the door"This is the problem with your argument. We don't think of both opening and closing the door, because from a human perspective, it isn't possible. Your whole argument for God's lack of omnipotence is based around the idea that it is impossible to both open and close a door, impossible to both do and not do something. Human logic is flawed in that what it cannot comprehend it states as false. Because we don't understand something, we say it is false.In this, to say that God is not omnipotent because if you put him in human logic he fails, it is shifting the goalposts. It is tantmount to me saying that if you take a paradigm which states that "it is not possible for God to exist", then God, from the perspective of that paradigm cannot even exist, so I can use that to argue for God's non-existence. It is the same as me using a paradigm which states, "It is possible for God to do anything", to prove his omnipotence. Or using a paradigm which states, "God must exist" to prove God's existence. Or using a paradigm which states that "if God exists, he is not omnipotent", to argue your case. There are infinite paradigms, and ways of logic which you could just as well use. The only reason you use consensus human logic is because it is the most commonly accepted.It doesn't mean it holds any ground however. This, being the last round means you have failed your BOP to prove why human logic should matter or be used, and why it holds any position over other paradigms. Seeing as you have not proved why human logic should be the paradigm taken into account, and why God should be put into it, I could just as well counter argue with one of the above methods of thought which help my case.What this means is that your premise is based upon an assertion, and cannot be taken into account. Unless you proved why human logic should be used, it is just another paradigm that can be used to prove/disprove God's omnipotence. I could be using a paradigm which states that if God is real, he is a lobster, to prove that point. Unless you proved that human logic has any dominion, it serves no place here above all others.Meaning the only thing we can debate on, is the idea of omnipotence. As you have no arguments standing, and as the definition is the only thing on the table, I urge the floor to vote for Con. Because syllogistically, as I said above; if God can do anything, he can do anything. It is within the definition of omnipotence that God can be omnipotent, and that the only way to disprove is to prove the three statements in my last round, which Pro in all cases has not done.So I urge the floor to read carefully, and see that he has not met his vital BOP and has no points standing, as all of his points relied on a BOP he failed to met. I have refuted this, and proved that with the definition, God can be omnipotent, no matter the situation, and that is obvious. I once again, for a final time, urge the floor to side with Con. But this has been a pleasant, difficult, intruiging and most of all fun debate.Thanks to 9spaceking.