The Cosmological Claim. There is a supernatural creator, not constrained within time, that created a

Rebuttal to assumption 1: The idea that time has a starting point is up for scientific debate. Time is relative, changing in the observer's perception when experiencing changes in velocity and gravity. The universe exists *as we know it* because of our perception of time. That is not to say that our universe did not exist before the big bang, as the matter had to have been there before it erupted in a bang. The difference is that the way in which time moved and flowed would have been perceived differently, where a third dimensional observer may not be able to perceive in such a state. Time may have had a start in the way in which we could physically observe it, but this does not mean that time had no beginning. Things having a beginning and end are subject to judgement, as ultimately all matter just moves from one place to the next. Assumption 2 rebuttal: There is no evidence to suggest this whatsoever. You assume that a beginning, which as stated previously is just the movement of matter from one place to the next, must come from a creator with intelligent design. Just because we as humans define the word 'create' in such a way does not give your argument any backing. You are simply using definitions and philosophy to make an argument about the observable natural world. Regardless, this assumes that everything was intentionally 'created' and not that it 'accidentally' just happened for no real reason other than the one that you give it. Assumption 3 rebuttal: The main point I would argue here is that this creator must be extra-dimensional in order to perceive events outside of our perception of time, whilst possessing the power to 'create'. The question I would ask is why is there only one of these beings? If he is extra-dimensional, thus allowing him to act beyond the reaches of our perception of time, then other dimensions must exist which therefore gives credence to the multiverse theory. In which case, there would be a potentially infinite number of creators. This begs the question as to why there is only one. The much simpler answer is that there is no creator. Furthermore, all natural beings being constrained in time would only apply to their existence as living beings. As, again, matter just moves from one place to another. Matter can not be created or destroyed, it will just change forms. As matter composes the building blocks of existence, you then must ask the question if matter is a being. It is not, however, constrained by time. Assumption 4 rebuttal: This is essentially a literal definition of what defines supernatural, "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." This point is essentially moot, as anything beyond our understanding can be considered 'supernatural'. When talking about the origins of life and the universe, any proposed idea would essentially be supernatural until proven. Irrespectively, this does not reinforce the argument that there even is a creator. Assumption 5 rebuttal: Now you're making a large assumption that because it is supernatural, it defies the laws of nature. As mentioned previously, supernatural only means that we do not understand it scientifically. As scientific research evolves all the time, this does not mean that because of our current understanding of such a "being" that it defies the laws of nature, it simply means that we lack the understanding of the ways in which it can operate. Again, this does not actually provide argument that a creator exists, but simply that a man-made definition has been applied to argument without being substantiated. Now, youre assumptions gradually become less of an actual argument. Whilst assumption 1 was interesting, and a debate in itself, your assumptions gradually degrade into applying unsubstantiated man-made definitions into situations that provide a basis for your argument. Nothing has actually been proved here as the hypothesis has been made from a philosophical observation. The scientific backing of these points is rather low. My final say on these points is that there is little to no scientific evidence to your overall claim. A creator implies that there is an intelligent mind at play who has, as you put, created everything. Yet you will find many examples of failures and flaws within these creations. Lastly, it is no surprise that a person would seek to understand the world with the idea that a creator had intentionally created everything. Humans are highly advanced social creatures, often victims of complex social constructs. As well as this, we are immensely curious. It should then come as no surprise that humans would attempt to explain the world that they do not understand, when reaching existential thought, through a social method. It made sense for early humans to think that there is simply another "bigger man" who would rank higher than them in their social perception, one who would put all the things we have, need, want and hate around us.