The "Supreme Being" MUST exist

Pro’s claim:“I will be arguing that the Supreme Being must exist and that He is the likely the creator of the universe and thus is omnipotent (capable of doing all that He wills to do that is not self-contradicting), transcendent (not a part of the universe), immanent (involved in the affairs of the world), omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient (having all knowledge). ”How is Pro going to do this? He says:"I will be relying primarily on logic and science. "Ok, let’s use logic and scienceLOGIC First, he made the notion that an intelligent Being created the universe. This would mean that his existence before the universe is irrefutable. However, we know that space and time were also created with and within the universe. Therefore, ‘before’ wouldn’t exist because time didn’t exist. According to Pro, however, God is outside the universe. Nobody even knows if there is an “outside” of the universe, and this claim is unfalsifiable. On that premise alone he cannot win this debate. He also declares that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all loving), and omniscient (all knowing). This, along with his claims that God is involved in world affairs, is not logical in the slightest. 1. If the god Pro is claiming exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. 2. An omnibenevolent being will eliminate evil when it can. 3. An omnipotent being has no limits 4. Evil exists 5. Therefore Pro’s God does not exist If an omnipotent God did exist, and was able to help with world suffering, he could not be omnibenevolent. If he was omnibenevolent then he couldn’t be omnipotent. I challenge Pro to answer how his logic or science can explain this. With all of the tragedy in the world including wars, natural disasters, and famine, I cannot fathom that an all powerful, all loving being would tolerate it. Sam Harris explained the rationale when he said “Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely. ”[6]SCIENCE I saw nothing scientific in Pro’s opening statement other than a few cherry picked quotes from scientists. Physicists and cosmologists agree that there is no reason to believe a god created the universe. Astrophysicist Alex Fillipenko of the University of California is one of them stating “The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there,” and “With the laws of physics, you can get universes. ”[1] One of the more prominent physicists in history, Stephen Hawking also agrees "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. "[7] My opponent used this quote from Hawking, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron ". The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life,"and followed it up with “Although an atheist, Hawking acknowledges that the universe is "finely adjusted". The simple fact is that something cannot be finely adjusted without an intelligence to do the adjusting. ” I think it’s quite easy to see that my opponent misrepresented the quote. When Pro states that something cannot be finely adjusted without intelligence, claims that as a fact, and attributes this “fact” to Stephen Hawking who is an atheist and has said repeatedly that the universe does not need a god to explain it. I must say, that is quite a stretch. He provides no evidence behind his claim that a finely adjusted universe needs an intelligence behind it. Science can explain the origins of the universe in several theories, each of which is more likely than Pro’s claim, and none of them defy scientific law or theoretical physics. I have yet to see any evidence from Pro where God is theoretically possible in terms of science. While Pro made the positive assertion that a Supreme Being must exist, and he has to prove that, he also stated that this ‘Being’ is likely the creator of the universe. I’ll provide more likely scenarios. The Big Bang TheoryThe Big Bang is without a doubt the most widely excepted theory of the origins of the universe. Theist are quick to point out the enigma of TBBT. It explains what happened moments after the formation of the universe but not what caused it. Here is where God would come in. I’m not ready to make that enourmous assumption. There is a more plausible theory available, The Big Crunch. The Big CrunchThe Big Crunch is a possible scenario that explains the universe’s origin. In this scenario, the expanding universe eventually reaches a point where it reverses itself and begins collapsing. It will ultimately end in a black hole singularity and resulting in another Big Bang. If this scenario were true, the answer for the universe has its answer. Cosmologists Andy Coley and Bernard Carr are suggesting that some primordial black holes predate the Big Bang. This would lend credence that the Big Bang was not just a singular event, and could have possibly been created in a prior Big Crunch. It would also explain why the Earth randomly gets blasted with unknown gamma ray busts[2]. Of course this is just speculation, as we cannot prove primordial black holes even exist, but the BOP is on Pro and I’m offering up more likely scenarios. M-Theory[4] Edward Witten proposed M-Theory, which takes the 5 superstring theories and combines them into one theoretical scenario which would have 11 dimensions (10 space, 1 time). . http://physicsworld.com... Multiverse[3] There are many multiverse scenarios that could be theoretically possible. Theoretical physicist Brian Greene lists nine of them. Due to character limitations I won’t be able to explain those theories. Just note, these are all possible according to theoretical physicists. Pro’s scenario is not. 1. Brane Multiverse 2. Inflationary Multiverse 3. Quantum Multiverse 4. Cyclic Multiverse 5. Landscape Multiverse 6. Quilted Multiverse 7. Holographic Multiverse 8. Simulated Muliverse 9. Ultimate Multiverse REBUTTALS My opponents claim. "Of all the men that exist in the world only ONE can be "the strongest man in the world" or "the fastest man in the world", even if no one knows who he is. In the same way of all the beings that exist within the universe only ONE can be "the greatest being in the universe" and of all the beings that do exist inside or outside of the universe only ONE can be "the greatest being in or out of the universe whether they be physical or non-corporal". Therefore logically the "Supreme Being" or "that which there can be nothing greater" must in fact exist" This argument is flawed on several levels. First, while I agree there has to be only one “strongest man” in the world, and one “fastest” man in the world, these two individuals are not going to be the same person. So, who would be considered the greater of these two? They both have specific areas where they are the ‘supreme’, but being “the greatest being in the universe” is an illogical statement that is incomprehensible. My opponent didn’t make it clear on what constitutes “greatest”? And besides, thereare other ideas which have as much or nearly as much ambiguity as the idea of a “Greatest Being” allegedly has. What about the concept of the “Greatest Pizza” or the “Greatest Friend”? His examples are also irrelevant when talking about a transcendent, all powerful being. Time, as we know it, is limited to within the universe. Pro has made the claim that God transcendent (outside of the universe), rendering him infinite. Infinity is a concept that the human mind cannot fully grasp. We live in a world with numbers, therefore making his examples meaningless. We know there are roughly 7 billion people in this world. To say one has to be “the strongest” or “the fastest” is to say if everyone got a lottery ticket, there will be a winner. That is logically understandable. To say a being has to be the “Greatest” just raises more questions. Summery Due to character limitations, I will finish my rebuttal next round. My opponent explicitly stated that he was going to use logic and Science to prove that a Supreme Being must exist. If he truly was using science, he would recognize that what he presented is a hypothesis. I did not see one example that constitutes evidence that a Supreme Being must exist. Therefore, making a claim as extraordinary as Pro has without any evidence to support said claim is not only unscientific, but it’s irresponsible and offensive to science. Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation: [5]Not only did Pro fail to validate his resolution. He was careless and hasty when labeling information as fact. Since the Burden of Proof is on Pro, I only need to refute his claims. I provided more likely scenerios for the origin of the universe, scientifically speaking. I also provided a higher degree of logic to refute his claims. Sources [1] . http://www.nbcnews.com... [2] . http://phys.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.princeton.edu... [5] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [6] . http://www.goodreads.com... [7] . http://phys.org...;