The "Supreme Being" MUST exist

Let’s revisit the entire resolution. "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). I will be relying primarily on logic and science. The first round is acceptance only. 4th round is for summary only. No new arguments are to be presented." My opponent was responsible for proving that a “Supreme Being” must exist. For this resolution to be true there can be no other option than this ‘Being’ existing. Not only did Pro have to prove this ‘Being’s’ existence, but he also had to show that ‘He’ was likely the creator of the Universe, and likely to have tri-omni abilities. As I explained earlier in this debate, to show something as LIKELY is to show that it is the most probable solution. There is no evidence that supports this resolution, and that’s a problem for Pro; a big problem. He would not only need evidence, but PROOF to make the claim that a Supreme Being MUST exist. Despite Pro’s arrogant certainty, we do not have any reason, scientifically or logically, to believe this to be the case. Pro did use an argument that we can relate to. His “There must be a strongest man, and a fastest man” argument. I do not disagree with this statement, but as I explained, these two “greatest” will be different people; therefore neither one is “The Greatest”. If Pro cannot even show that a “greatest” human must exist, he cannot properly show that a “greatest Being” must exist. Earth, as far as we know, is the only place with intelligent life, and there is no supreme human being. To clarify, just because it may be plausible to consider a Supreme Being as existing, it does not mean one actually exists. Pro also defines the “Supreme Being” as "that which there can be nothing greater." That definition implies the greatest in every aspect, therefore having tri omni abilities. I understand that Pro doesn’t have to show that this ‘Being’ MUST have these abilities, but he has to show it is LIKELY. I logically showed that an omnipotent and omni benevolent intelligence could not create any imperfection. That would nullify that “Being” from being perfect, or “which nothing can be greater.” If we can conceive a better world, then a better world is possible. An imperfect “Supreme Being” is an oxymoron. I pointed out the number of instances of suffering with no reasonable divine justification. He claimed there could be a good reason for evil, which is illogical speculation, while ignoring my arguments that had nothing to do with ‘evil’, such as natural disasters. This shows the unlikelihood, if not impossibility of an omnipotent and omni benevolent “Supreme Being”. I showed this with logic, and in my opinion Pro’s rebuttal to it was very under whelming. Several times during this debate I was falsely accused of ignoring Pro's arguments. I did nothing to breach the debate format, which was laid out by Pro. The 1st round was for acceptance and the 4th round for summery, where no new arguments can be made. My arguments were well within these parameters. He claimed “facts” to points that haven’t been proven to be fact. He accused me of contradictions in my argument, even though I did not make a positive claim. As I stated that’s an asinine accusation when my position is just to refute his. He used quotes as a big part of his argument, which I admittedly ignored, not because I ran out of room, but because those quotes did nothing to prove Pro’s resolution. As I stated, in a debate I don’t value opinionated quotes that aren’t based in scientific fact, especially when there are plenty of quotes that directly go against those opinions. Pro is stuck on the fact that I didn't explain the multiverse theories as if that was my only rebuttal to that argument. Him calling multiverse theories null and void is equivalent to me saying he didn't explain how his “Supreme Being” created the universe if in fact 'He' did. Every one of Pro’s relevant arguments was debunked. I already recapped the “strongest man in the world” argument, in which proved nothing. I showed the Universe not to be fine-tuned, and had a study from Yale that conflicted with his predisposition of God argument. In terms of the “Icarus” study, Pro used such strong conviction in stating was fact. I showed that scientists are still studying this claim, and it is far from being a factual piece of evidence. I also explained that even if it was true, it would not prove a “Supreme Being”, it would just prove there is other life in the Universe. When all is said and done, Pro didn’t bring ONE scientific fact to back his claim. He did state that he was going to be using logic and SCIENCE to prove his resolution. In Conclusion My opponent proposed a hypothesis at the beginning of the debate, and it remains a hypothesis at the end of the debate. The “Supreme Being must exist” claim is an unfalsifiable one that was refuted by providing alternate and more plausible explanations. Pro said he would be using science and logic to prove his resolution, and I didn’t find either convincing. It can’t be considered scientific because you can’t test it. It’s intellectually and scientifically irresponsible to make a truth claim on hearsay, or conjecture. Since testing this claim is impossible, providing any proof is just as impossible. Seeing that Pro did not meet his resolution, I strongly urge the judges to vote CON. Not only did he fail to prove the existence of a “Supreme Being”, but I provided more logical and scientifically possible alternatives to Pro’s claim. The fact that my arguments are more scientific is not subjective, and therefore neither is the logic. I want to thank Pro one last time for this debate. I haven’t debated much on here, but this one has been my favorite to be a part of thus far.