God's Existence is More Plausible Than His Non-Existence.

I have long wanted to debate the existence of god. Let's see how it goes. Argument One: The free will argument. P1: Humans have free will. P2: Having free will implies having power over oneself. P3: To be a maximally powerful being you must control everything. P4: Since humans have power over themselves no other being can have power over their free will. C: Since no being can have complete control over human's free will a maximally powerful being cannot exist. Premise 1-- Humans have free will. This is uncontroversial. Look to the bible, Koran, Torah etc. Humans are always given free will. Without it any sense of sin or morality would not exist. I could elaborate on this if my opponent takes issue with this premise. Premise 2 -- Having free will implies having power over oneself. This as well is a simple definition of free will. Premise 3 -- To be a maximally powerful being you must control everything. Again, a simple definition of what it means to be maximally powerful. Premise 4 -- Since humans have power over themselves no other being can have power over their free will. A very logical conclusion, if humans control themselves it is automatically implied that they and nothing else controls them. Conclusion -- Since no being can have complete control over human's free will a maximally powerful being cannot exist. Again an easily created logical conclusion, going off premise 4, which derives from premise 1-3, we can conclude that it is impossible for any being to have power over humans making them not maximally powerful. Argument Two: The Paradox Argument. P.1: A maximally great being has the ability to do anything. P.2: Since a maximally great being has the ability to do anything it should be able to create an object that it could not lift. P.3: If a maximally great had a task that it could not achieve it would cease to be maximally great. C: A maximally great being cannot existPremise 1 -- A maximally great being has the ability to do anything. Simple definition of omnipotent. Premise 2 -- Since a maximally great being has the ability to do anything it should be able to create an object that it could not lift. This is an easily made logical conclusion, if a maximally great being has the ability to do anything it should be able to do this. Premise 3 -- If a maximally great being had a task that it could not achieve it would cease to be maximally great. If a maximally great being could not do something it would no longer be maximally great. Since it created a task for itself (creating an object it could not lift) that it cannot achieve it no longer can do something. If it could not create an object that it could not lift then again it has failed to achieve the task of creating an object it cannot lift. Conclusion -- A maximally great being cannot existThis conclusion derives from premise two and three. This maximally great being is tasked with both creating a task it cannot achieve and then achieving that task it had just created. The being would obviously be unable to achieve one of the two tasks and thus fail in it's definition of being maximally great by not being able to achieve all possible tasks. --This is very similar to the paradox of a unmovable object and an unstoppable force hitting each other. One of which must lose their inherent characteristics in that situation meaning that one of them cannot exist in the same universe as the other. Rebuttal:I would like to take issue with quite a few of my opponent's premises. Argument One: The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentP1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe had a cause. [1]Rebuttal:I agree with all the premises and even the conclusion of this argument. The issue is simply put that just because the universe had some creator and beginning does not mean that that creator was a maximally great being. For example, I can create a cake. I am not maximally great. I. E. The creator of the universe is not inherently maximally great. I would submit that the creator of the universe was the big bang. This can be refuted but for the most part it is generally accepted by science. I would be happy to further back up this statement if it is refuted. The big bang is not maximally great as in it no longer has power, omnipresence, benevolence etc. What this means is that while you are correct, something created the universe, that something was not however a maximally great being. I foresee that you will argue what came before the big bang? Well, I don't know, in fact nobody knows. But we do know that something can come from nothing. Recently at cern using vacuum fluctuations between two casmir plates anti-particles and particles quickly came into existence and then vanished. [1]. This is allowed for under quantum physics and under Heisenberg uncertainty principle actually happens quite frequently. So, there doesn't necessarily have to be anything before the big bang in order for the universe to exist. If you disagree with this it raises the question, Who/What created this Maximally Great Being? And if something created it wouldn't it be more maximally great? Which would negate the resolution. Argument Two: The Ontological ArgumentP1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists. P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [3]Premise 1:Incorrect. See my first two arguments which logically prove that a maximally great being cannot exist. You cannot simply assume this. .. Premise 2:This does not make sense. It only works under the Multi-Verse theory which is an extremely unlikely version of reality. I would task you of proving that entire theory in order to utilize the idea of multiple worlds. Premise 3:Also doesn't make sense. Even if the Multi-Verse theory is accurate this doesn't work. Simply because something exists in one universe doesn't mean it will exist in another. Premise 4:This fails after premise 1-3 have been negated. Premise 5:This fails after premise 4 is negated. Conclusion:All premises have been negated. Conclusion is negated. Argument NegatedArgument Three: Thomistic Cosmological ArgumentPremise 1: Motion is not a form of change. In fact, most theoretical physicists would agree that it is impossible to move as all movement is created in perspective due to the Theory of Relativity. From your perspective it looks as though the universe moves around you as you stand still. From any one perspective, self motion is impossible and is thus not change. Premise 2: ConcededPremise 3: Conceded. Premise 4: Wrong, see my point about something from nothing, that works for energy as well. (Energy translates into motion)Conclusion 1: This does not matter. This "original mover" is not necessarily a maximally great being. See argument about big bang. Conclusion 2: This is an Argument Ad Populum. it doesn't mean anything. Even if premises are correct the conclusion only states that there is a creator of the universe. That creator is not necessarily a maximally great being. It is likely the big bang and if it is god it does not show that he is benevolent, omnipresent, and omnipotent. I have negated premise 1 and 4 negating the conclusion. I have also shown the conclusions to be irrelevent to the resolution. Argument Negated. Final Conclusion: I have created 2 arguments of my own and negated all of my opponents arguments. Resolution Negated. Thank you for this interesting debate. I look forward to your rebuttal.