The "Supreme Being" MUST exist

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.His opening statement misquoted what I said my goal was. My first notion was NOT as he said that an Intelligent Being created the universe but rather that a Supreme Being MUST exist. This I have logically shown. I then built the case by use of science and logic that this Supreme Being is likely to be the Creator, and therefore has all the other attributes which are generally assigned to Him. As I clearly stated it was NOT my goal to “prove” that the Supreme Being HAS these attributes, but rather I said “is likely” to have them. However that the “greatest” or the “Supreme Being” exists is, as I have pointed out, a logical no-brainer.Con then relies on a number of illogical statements to attempt to rebuff the logic that a “greatest being” must exists. In referring to my statement that this Supreme Being could have been responsible for the creation of the universe he said: “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 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. His own later statements disprove what he states here. As a result he shows logical inconsistency. To quote my opponent “On that premise alone he cannot win this debate.” He then proceeds to attempt to use a variation of the illogical Epicurean conflict of evil and the omnipotence of God as a rebuff of my logical statement of the existence of a Supreme Being. While it was my intention to leave theology out of this debate, he has introduced the topic so I must comment. His statement is illogical on two fronts. First of all being omnipotent or omnibenevolent are ATTRIBUTES which theists BELIEVE God to have. As I stated we may be wrong in that assumption, but not having a particular attribute does not disprove the existence of God. I have however shown that it is LIKELY (as my Round 1 paragraph stated) to have them. Secondly for a statement to be logical ALL of the premises must be totally correct. Both he, Epicurus and Sam Harris whom he cited failed in this. His second premise states: “An omnibenevolent being will eliminate evil when it can.” This statement is untrue. The Bible (and other religion’s Sacred texts) state that God CREATED evil but also condemns it when we do it.[1] So the question is “Why would God create evil?” The answer is fairly obvious in that we would never have the free choice to do good unless we had the free choice to do evil. If we are here to learn how to love, then love by its very nature cannot be forced. It must be first learned then freely given. For all we know the physical reality is nothing but a classroom. But the simple fact that God could have had a profound reason for evil renders the “Epicurean paradox” and all of its variations illogical. In his “Science” section Con totally ignores the scientific evidence I presented from the “Icarus” study concerning the fact that the terrestrial DNA was “intelligently designed”[2] and the second scientific study carried out by Oxford University which showed that humans are predisposed to believe in God. [3] As stated the first study leaves us with two choices… that terrestrial DNA was designed by an alien species within the universe or a supernatural intelligence from beyond the universe. The second study about our predisposition to believe in God suggests that of the two choices left us by the first study that the choice that the programming was done by a supernatural being from outside of the universe is the more likely. As these studies were left completely unanswered and unchallenged by Con then judges would be forced to conclude that I won the points which were made.He also misrepresented my use of Stephen Hawking’s quote that the universe seems to be “finely adjusted”. As I stated I am fully aware that Hawking is an atheist and does have what he claims are “explanations” for the cause of the universe. My reference to him was totally on the basis of what seems to be his own “Freudian slip” in the use of the word “adjusted”. Adjustment cannot take place without an “adjustor”. I went on to cite other prominent scientists who essentially said the same thing. My opponent chose to dismiss them all under the category of “cherry picking” with NO discussion of what the quotes actually said. It was the statements by these scientists and others which form the basis of support for my discussion on what could be seen as evidence for the existence of a supernatural intelligence. I believe a fair judge would carry this point to my side as well.In his “explanation” of scientific theories that could explain away the “fine adjustment” found in the universe I find it interesting that he begins with the “Big Crunch” and the cycle of the universe. I would guess that Con is unaware that this theory is far older than he suspects as it is a Hindu religious concept dating from about 500 B.C. [4] It is also interesting that he is affirming one of the quotes from scientists which I previously cited but he dismissed: "For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." -- Robert Jastrow (agnostic)The essential flaw in the cycle theory is that all it does is push the necessity of a FIRST cause to that far, far distant past. But the necessity of a FIRST cause remains. Something cannot spring from absolutely NOTHING. So from where did the original “something” come from?His reference to M-Theory can be dismissed as he made no statement as to what conclusions could be drawn from this theory. Simply listing the name of something that MAY support a position without any indication of how it supports it is a misuse of references. He then uses as support of one of the most bizarre and controversial scientific theories, that of the multiverse. While this was also done without any explanation of how it supports his contention and could be dismissed, I will comment as this is what was advanced by Hawking in an effort to explain away the “fine-tuning”. This theory is essentially the same as the old concept of billions of monkeys on typewriters eventually writing the complete works of Shakespeare. Our universe just happened to be in the lucky one that got everything right. However the fact is that the billions of monkeys would produce nothing but gibberish unless an intelligence was there to show one monkey what keys to press. So to explain away how a single universe could spring into being from nothing they credit as “possible” that BILLIONS of universes sprang into being from nothing, and then life sprang from nothing, then intelligence sprang from nothing. Occam’s Razor states that least complicated solution is most often the correct one.[5] The scientists involved with the Icarus study came to the conclusion that an intelligence was involved based on the math in DNA sequencing which was impossible to occur naturally. Science is faced with far greater numbers in the creation of the universe. Rather than simply admit that an intelligence is possible they create the improbable notion of billions of universes all of which sprang from nothing to try to explain it away with no proof or even the possibility of proof. It is no wonder that many legitimate scientists consider the multiverse theory to be “pseudoscience”.“The multiverse hypothesis is a source of disagreement within the physics community. Physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists, and whether the multiverse is a proper subject of scientific inquiry…. In contrast, critics such as David Gross, Paul Steinhardt,] George Ellis and Paul Davies have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific, or even that the multiverse hypothesis is harmful or pseudoscientific.”[6]Con overlooks the fine-tuning found does NOT indicate that we are adapted to the universe but rather that the universe has been adapted to us. The multiverse theory is but an attempt to NOT acknowledge an active intelligence.“...it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us. Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.” [7] Summary in next round.[1] Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, Amos 3:6, also in Psalms [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [3] http://www.ox.ac.uk... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://discovermagazine.com...