The Supreme Being Exists

My position is that the concept of a Supreme Being existing is irrational. For this, here are the proof and the arguments that I present: 1. The Omnipotence ParadoxIf a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do. [1] By this debate's definition of "omnipotence", the omnipotence referenced here is absolute omnipotence, meaning that there are no limits to the Supreme Being's omnipotence by the terms of this debate. Thus, omnipotence cannot exist.2. The Omniscience Paradox(1) If the Supreme Being foreknows of some event E, does E happen necessarily, and (2) if some event E is contingent, how can the Supreme Being foreknow E's occurrence? [2] [3] Thus, omniscience implies the lack of contingency, and thus, by the definition of the existence of a Supreme Being, means everything is definite. This definitiveness is proof of the universe being completely entwined by order. But according to the thermodynamic measure of entropy, there is more than one way in which a thermodynamic system (eg: a region of the universe) may be arranged. [4] [5] This arrangement is variable, yet constant in the fact that the varied arrangements may coexist. Thus, there is, by definition, disorder in the universe. [4] If there is disorder, then only one hypothesis of the possibilities of entropy may be predestined, and not more. Thus, foreknowing all the possibilities is impossible. Therefore, omniscience does not exist. 3. Miracles"Miracle" is defined as "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency." [6] Miracles are (a) deemed possible and necessary by the laws of omnipotence, and (b) essential attributes of the Supreme Being. But, they are inexplicable by the laws of physics and have no proof to them. Therefore, if the Supreme Being is unable to perform any supernatural action, then he/she may not be considered as the Supreme Being. 4. Russell's TeapotRussell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. [7] This analogy also now allows me, having presented the logical rationales for the nonexistence of a Supreme Being, to shift the burden of proof to Pro and theism.Sources: [1] Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74–79[2] "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.[3] Viney, Donald Wayne (Spring 1989). "Does Omniscience Imply Foreknowledge? Craig on Hartshorneby". Process Studies (Center for Process Studies) 18 (1): 30–37.[4]"Carnot, Sadi (1796–1832)". Wolfram Research. 2007. Retrieved 2010-02-24.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] Oxford Dictionary of English, American Edition (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...;