The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1B

Thanks to my opponent for taking this debate, and I apologize that while it says in my opening argument we will debate normally from Rounds 2-4, we only have 3 Rounds in this debate. It seems next time I copy-paste this format, I have to remember some stuff :) Anyway, onto the debate! I acknowledge my opponent's attributes of "god". It is omnipotent and omniscient. However, stemming from only these two attributes my opponent gives and the single argument he gave, there are already several problems. ~Counterarguments~ 1. Omnipotence paradox If god is supposed to be all-powerful, then can he make a rock so heavy that he can't life it? If he can't, then this limits his power. If he can, then there is something he can't do, thus limiting his power. As you can see, this is similar to the liar paradox in which their is a logical self-refutation. 2. The cause of god By my opponent's argument, which takes form of the First Cause argument, how does he account for where god comes from? If everything were to be caused then is it not so that god is caused? 3. Something can come from nothing My opponent's argument is basically the First Cause argument. That everything in this universe has a cause, and that there must be a first cause. An omnipotent and omniscient god can be this first cause. However, in quantum mechanics there ARE things that come out of nowhere. Such a case is commonly known, and is called a virtual particle[1]. It is a particle that exists for a limited space and time, then obliterates almost immediately. 4. Possible explanations for pre- Big Bang (Multiverse hypothesis) While many physicists emphasis that along with the Big Bang was time (therefore nothing "before" Big Bang, and thus there was no cause, a growing population of physicists are conjuring some explanations. A possible scenario is the Multiverse hypothesis, which states that several others to even an infinite amount of universes exist in what we call "reality". By different methods (which will be discusssed), physicists argue that it is possible for things before our universe's Big Bang to happen. In these other universes, they can have totally different physical laws, since one second prior the Big Bang, the laws of science were thus formed. I will list them accordingly in an ABC format. A. Branes In theoretical physics, primarily the growing string theory, some physicists are arguing that the Big Bang/our universe could be very well caused by collisions of Membranes[2]. B. By random quantum-gravity foam, a bubble universe can form and lead to Big Bangs. This is what is called a chaotic inflation [3]. 5. Occam's razor Occam's razor posits that the best scientific explanatino should make the fewest assumptions, and should try to base itself on existing/verified theories or hypothesis already. "God" fails Occam's razor horribly in comparison to theoretical physics. 6. A possible other god In the very unlikely scenario that my opponent successfully refutes all of my other 5 points, his argument has still one flaw. It is his burden to show that the creation of the universe/causing the Big Bang can ONLY be done by an OMNIPOTENT god. Let's assume that the when an entity has omnipotent power, we will label it A. Now if another entity has 5% less power than entity A, we will label it entity B. I ask of my opponent, why can only entity A create the universe and not entity B? The hole in his argument is that it still can't show why a universe needing a first cause necessitates an omnipotent god only. ~Conclusion~ I gave 5 points my opponent needs to take consideration of. I apologize again for the short amount of rounds. And remember, some of my arguments are stemming from only the definitions my opponent gives, since I have nothing else to work with. ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...