God's existence - supernatural explanation superior to natural due to violation of nature

This motion is a lot more productive than our last. First a preliminary. -God I assume we are taking this definition:The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. I will make my own case first and then I shall offer a brief refutation that I will further expand upon and the second round. -Social Science and human qualities. My case will be made from Social Science and why you would expect someone to create gods. Now I will deal with Physics and Cosmological arguments, and why these fail, but I believe it is more important to talk about human and societal development first. -Sheer mathematical implausibility. How many gods have been proposed in history? Over 3000. Let's take this one god, and put this over 3000. The calculation gives us the answer of 0.00033333. If we care about math, it is ridiculously improbable the god we are discussing exists. Now my opponent and I agree that 99.99999% of these are false. We just differ on this one. -Why have people invented gods? Well throughout history, gods have primarily been invented to explain things. Thor-- the lovely Norse god of thunder. People used to not understand natural forces, so they invented gods to explain them. Is god's existence explained by thunder? Nope We could go on for quite a while about god's and what they symbolize. But the point I'm trying to make is, is that god's are usually present when we don't know something. This is referred to as god of the gaps. I'm not saying my opponent is doing this, she just is suffering from a misunderstanding of the science. The main point is the more we learn the less we need gods. -For power and to justify bad things. Humans are naturally good. If we naturally thought killing and acts like killing were moral, we would not have made it this far. Naturally humans will strongly resist the notion of burning people at stake, but if you introduce god, and contingent punishment people are all for it. The Nazi party thought they were doing gods work. Islamic extremist appeal to god to justify there poor acts. Now I'm not saying religion is all bad; I personally think religion is great, but I am saying it is trivially easy to justify bad things with god. -Consolation Humans fear the unknown. Death is profoundly scary, so it is incredibly normal for someone to create something for consolation. The same is true for justice, we want justice. Theists love saying, hey if there is no god people can do whatever they want and they will have no punishment. Well yea that's true, but then there would be no justice, so it's sensible that someone would create a false justice paradigm to deter bad acts. There's more I can say on the sociology and evolutionary psychology, but that is sufficient for now. I think the concept of a god is pretty easily arrived at naturally, through the human condition and thought. Now on the implausibility of god from logic and philosophy. -Existence Exist:have objective reality or being. What does this mean? I think it implies temporality. One would not say a being exists for -2 or 0 second or, that something with an objective existence, exists in no space. So most notions of god say that god created the universe, but how does such a being exist before the universe. Time and space begin with the universe, so saying something created the universe is to say a being exists in no time and no space. The same is true with the multiverse. Please demonstrate how any being exists outside of space and time. Now onto the hard science. My opponent appeals to thermodynamics, specifically the second law. The second law of thermodynamics actually states:The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy. Now you've made a few assumptions. 1. There's only one universe. I am inferring you think this because if there is a multiverse nothing you have said is especially meaningful or an indication of any god. 2. Everything has a cause. 3. Natural laws existed before the universe/multiverse. 4. Our universe can't be eternal 1. My case for the multiverse: Via inflation, some parts of the early universe expanded more than other, created bublbles of space time, which later developed into other universes, and our universe is just a bubble universe and requires no creator just a prior universe. The multiverse can be eternal. 2. Everything has a cause? How do you figure? Well empirically not everything has a cause. Particles come in and out of existence from nothing with no cause. . http://www.scientificamerican.com... 3. Did the laws of physics exist before the universe. Well the laws of physics describe the universe, so if there's no universe how can there be laws of physics? They would be reduced to the laws of nothing? 4. Our universe can be eternal. The Quantum Eternity Theorem states: under conventional quantum mechanics, any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian will necessarily last forever toward both the past and the future. Sorry I didn't realize tried to account for quantum physics. However you just kind of shrugged it off. "but that would assume something from nothing. something from something else makes more sense. " Well something coming from nothing makes more since to me than god being eternal and creating the universe from nothing. The former has let's variables. When you apply quantum physics to gravity, the whole universe can come from nothing. In my next round I will elaborate more on quantum mechanics, address any objections my opponent has and introduce the idea of god being a square circle. If god can do anything that is logically possible, and his existence is not logically possible, the he can't exist. I will go into detail in the next round I await your rebuttals.