The "Supreme Being" MUST exist

My opponent used mistruths and logical fallacies to rebut my arguments. He has asked for the judges to “conclude” that he won those points. I would like to point out that the Burden of Proof is on Pro, and even if he did “win” those points, it does nothing to prove his resolution. Here is a Logical Fallacy list I will be referencing when I use (LF:...) http://rationalwiki.org...After re-evaluating Pro’s resolution, I should have said: Pro claims that a ‘Supreme Being’ exists and he believes ‘Him’ to be the creator of the universe. This changes nothing. While it’s true that he only has to prove that a ‘Supreme Being’ must exist, he also has to show why ‘He’ is likely to have created the universe and therefore have tri-omni abilities. When Pro says a ‘Supreme Being’ must exist, it means there is no other option than that ‘Being’ existing. When he says ‘He’ is likely the creator of the universe, it means that the probability of that claim is higher than EVERY other hypothesis that exists. If this is true, then Pro claims this being to be tri-omni, transcendent, and imminent. False Claims - Pro’s First Paragraph “Con leaves gaping holes in both logic and science in his statement and totally ignores the scientific discoveries which I presented that are one of the bases of my argument.” (LF: Strawman) My logic is backed by science, and I did not ignore Pro’s “scientific discovery” argument. If he had read the summery in my opening statement, he would have seen where I clearly stated “Due to character limitations, I will finish my rebuttal next round.” Supreme Being Must Exist –Pro’s 2nd Paragraph He claims that he has logically shown that a Supreme Being must exist, and called it a “logical no-brainer.” If he is referring to his “Only one man can be ‘the strongest man in the world” argument (LF: Non Sequitur, Composition/Division) as logically showing that a Supreme Being MUST exist, then I would just disagree. He provides no evidence for this claim. ILLogical? - Pro’s 3rd Paragraph When I made the statement that God could not create the universe before time, because “before time” is an illogical concept, Pro called that an illogical statement. Nothing about that statement was illogical, and its main premise was to show that Pro’s claim was unfalsifiable. An unfalsifiable claim means confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... Pro says: “ He claims here that an “outside of the universe” cannot be shown, and that because our space/time was created with the universe there can be no “before” but then later in reference to the Big Crunch, M theory and the mulverse theory he states that other dimensions and universe with their own time-line DO exist.” (LF: Strawman) It is fact that an outside of the universe cannot currently be shown. It is fact that space and time were created with the universe. It is NOT fact however that I “STATED” that other dimensions and universes DO exist. I never once made a positive claim for any hypothesis. Pro argues that I am logically inconsistent because some of the theories that I mentioned directly contradicted one another. Maybe Pro doesn’t understand that he holds the BURDEN OF PROOF, and it is not my job to make a truth claim, but rather provide alternatives for his. Whether or not they contradict each other is irrelevant. They are all theoretically possible, unlike his God claim; therefore I profess them to be more likely. Epicurean Paradox – Pro’s 4th Paragraph Pro calls my Epicurean Paradox argument illogical. He wrote a nice sized paragraph addressing it, but he conveniently left out half of my argument. He only addressed the problem with evil. The second half, I made the argument that an all powerful, all loving god that allows WARS, NATURAL DISASTERS, and FAMINE couldn’t exist. That has nothing to do with free will or evil. A tri-omni god, by definition is a perfect being. A perfect being would create a perfect world, without natural disasters and hunger. A world that is 70% water, yet only 2.5% is drinkable is far from ideal. If a perfect being did create an imperfect world, it would mean the being is not perfect. Then Pro says this: “While it was my intention to leave theology out of this debate, he has introduced the topic so I must comment.” This is an erroneous statement. Not only did he describe the Christian God in the resolution, but in his opening statement, he made several theological references by calling this “Being” God, with a capital ‘G’, implying the Abrahamic god. Pro said in his opening: “Theists BELIEVE the Supreme Being to have specific attributes. We believe Him to be transcendent (not a part of the universe), immanent (involved in the affairs of the world), omnipotent (capable of doing all that He wills to do that is not self-contradicting), omnipresent, omniscient (having all knowledge), and the creator of the universe.” Yet he claims that I introduced theology to the debate. I think it is also worth noting that when defending his position against my ‘Epicurean Paradox’ argument he specifically used the Bible as his defense, and his source. I don’t think we can question which god that Pro is claiming to exist. I will say, he did mention “other religious texts”, but only the Bible was cited by name and source. I’d like to point out that the Bible is not evidence unless he can prove the Bible’s validity. Science – Pro’s 5th Paragraph Pro accuses me of ignoring his scientific evidence of the “Icarus” study and his predisposition of God arguments. Again, false accusation due to not reading my summery. In terms of the SETI biological code claim, I find it fascinating. If it were true, it still wouldn’t prove that a ‘Supreme Being must exist.’ I am intrigued to hear what the scientists’ final conclusions are. Unfortunately, they don’t have conclusions yet. “To prove it, and pass the designer label test, a pattern found would have to be statistically significant, and have features that are non consistent with natural processes.” http://www.viralnovelty.net... As for Pro’s second point, I have an article that directly refutes his study. Konika Banerjee and Paul Bloom from the Department of Psychology at Yale University claim that there is no evidence in “hardwiring”, and there are other explanations. They say that there is no reason to believe that children are predisposed to believe in God. http://download.cell.com... Fine-tune/Multiverse – Pro’s 6-11 paragraphs Again Pro accuses me of overlooking his argument. This time it's regarding fine-tuning and a particular Stephen Hawking quote. I also 'failed' to address other scientists with the same mindset. I was curious about the context of the quote, so I clicked on his resource link. I was directed to a college site with just a list of quotes and still no context. Upon further research, I discovered this quote was from Hawking’s book ‘A Brief History of Time’. It was written in 1988. That was 7 years prior to the Hubble Deep Field images which resulted in a much greater understanding of the Cosmos. Dr. Sean Carroll, a Theoretical Physicist at Caltech argues against the “fine-tuning” theory. “I will start granting [that life couldn’t exist with different conditions]. Once someone tells me the conditions under which life can exist.” “We just don’t know whether life could exist if the conditions of the universe were very different because we only see the universe that we see.” Pro claims that in the cyclical theories of the universe, it would require a First Cause. Then he says “Something cannot spring from absolutely NOTHING. So from where did the original “something” come from?” Actually, something can come from nothing. Quantum fluctuations have proved that the energy in space can briefly violate the law of conservation energy and create subatomic particles. We know this from empirical evidence. http://www.space.com... Pro is the one that claimed something could not come out of nothing. So how does he explain where his “god” came from? (LF: Special Pleading) It's hypocritical to use that logic to battle my arguments but ignore it when it shoots his down. He says the multiverse theory is “one of the most bizarre and controversial scientific theories” and later “The multiverse theory is but an attempt to NOT acknowledge an active intelligence.” (LF: Arg. from Incredulity) Apparently Pro doesn’t realize that the multiverse theory has quite a bit of evidence supporting it, or he won't admit that it's a prediction of well-established science. http://www.space.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.math.columbia.edu... http://www.colorado.edu... Occam’s Razor/Quotes Pro uses Occam’s Razor as an argument for his favor because he claims the “God” hypothesis is the much simpler explanation. I would disagree with that assessment. He doesn’t acknowledge that we have no supernatural precedents by which to evaluate the probability of his god proposal. The possibilities that I introduced are either theoretically possible by our current understanding of scientific law, or already have some empirical evidence. As for the ‘other quotes’ that I didn’t address, I don’t feel that I need to. Some scientists may agree with Pro, but most don't. The quotes offer no evidence, just opinions.Summery(LF: One Single Proof)