The "Supreme Being" MUST exist

SUMMARY I would also like to remind the judges that the debate was limited to 10,000 characters per round. If my opponent’s comments did not fit within that requirement he should have, as I had to do, edit them rather than state he would “continue them in the next round” thus by the terms of the debate give me no opportunity to answer them. I also find I must remind judges what the topic of the debate was and thus must repeat my opening statement. I stated: “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.” All of the things I have stated I would do, I have done. The ONLY point in which I have the “burden of proof” is that of the existence of the “Supreme Being” which I have LOGICALLY shown. I did not state that this Being definitely HAS particular attributes, but rather it is LIKELY to have them. I need only give a reasonable argument to show that He does have these attributes. Con likewise has continually relied on trying to twist the subject of the debate to something else. I did not say, as he said, that I would be providing scientific “proof” of the Supreme Being. Nor did I ever say in the entire debate that I was arguing a case, as he said, about “the Christian God”. The capitalization of any name or title is proper English. “God” is the name that we use to indicate the “Supreme Being”. Many religions other than Christianity refer to God as the “Supreme Being.” I made reference not only to Christian teachings but Hindu and Buddhist teachings as well. I have LOGICALLY shown that a “Supreme Being” MUST exist. The definition which I used for the Supreme Being is “that which there can be nothing greater”. Logically a “Supreme” or “Greatest” Being (inside or outside the universe whether physical or non-corporal) must exist because there must be a “greatest”. As I said my opening statement stated that this being was LIKELY to have particular attributes. Never did I state as Con said that I would “scientifically prove” that this Being does have particular attributes, but rather was LIKELY to have them. This I have shown via recent scientific studies and statements by scientists which Con chose to completely ignore. That an “intelligence” was responsible for programming terrestrial DNA I showed by the study in “Icarus” scientific journal. That this intelligence was more likely to be supernatural in origin rather than an alien intelligence from our universe I showed with the Oxford University study which concluded that humans are predisposed to believe an God and an afterlife. That the universe itself displays a fine-tuning was shown by the numerous scientists of all religious or non-religious backgrounds who have studied it. This I showed. I likewise showed that if the universe was in fact a creation of the Supreme Being that He MUST have all of the attributes such as omnipotentence, etc. which I spoke about. Thus I have fulfilled all what I said I would do in my opening statement. In counter to the actual arguments which I made and statements by scientists Con initially said virtually NOTHING. He chose to ignore completely the two studies which formed one the two of the scientific basis of my argument. In any legitimate debate arguments which are overlooked give points to Pro, nor can these points be revisited by Con later in the debate because Pro would be unable to rebuff any counter arguments in the Summary where no new arguments may be made. Of my other arguments he said nothing other than the “greatest” cannot be known and then completely dismissed at all of the statements by scientists which I gave by calling them “cherry picking”. These statements formed another scientific basis for my argument. Con seemingly is relying on HUGE headlines to emphasis what he is saying, but then fails to apply any substance to his statements. In his counter he mentioned, but did not explain how the various theories he mentioned actually support his view, relying on with all but one something akin to “I do not have enough room to discuss them here.” He had the same amount of room which I did. The one he did explain, that of the cycle of the universe, I have no objection to as it was a religious concept long before it was a scientific one, and it does not explain the necessity of an absolute FIRST cause. It just pushed the issue into the remote past. He relies on illogical statements and contradicts himself in his arguments. As I pointed out if any one premise is shown to be false in a supposedly logical argument then the statement fails. I have shown how the “Epicurean paradox” and its variations do contain such false statements as it does not allow that God has a PURPOSE for the creation of evil which I then explained. This he essentially agreed when he acknowledged but did not comment on my statement on the possible purpose of evil. But then he switched his attention to other evils such as “war, natural disasters and famine” and repeated the exact same language which was already shown to be illogical. He said: “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.” If Con does not realize that wars and almost all famines are caused by greed and evil intentions then I do suggest he study current events more closely. He then makes the bizarre statement that HE knows what a “perfect being” would create a “perfect world”. Once again he fails to see the fact that imperfection can teach lessons that perfection never could. This was the point which I made when showing that the Supreme Being could have had a PURPOSE for the creation of evil. This fact renders his entire discussion of the Epicurean paradox as being illogical. I likewise pointed out the illogic of using a statement such as time cannot exist prior to the universe, and then later stating that other universes have their own time or that the universe recycles. He likes to label arguments as “logical fallacies” but apparently does not understand the meaning of the “fallacies” he refers to as they apply far more to his own arguments than any of mine. Each of my arguments was backed by legitimate scientific research and reports of findings. He relies on contentions like the multiverse which which were advanced with NO science to back it up and no possibility of ever gaining such support. The vast majority of scientists who support this contention are atheists who, as I referenced, where looking for anything so that they did not have to admit that the fine-tuning which they admit is there could have come from an intelligent entity who had to be supernatural. The fervor this has created in the scientific community is on-going as one of the basis of science is to only advance as “theories” that which scientific evidence can be shown. All that can possibly be shown of the “multiverse” is conjecture. It is for this very reason that many scientists consider the notion to be pseudoscience as I have referenced. Likewise, I pointed out to Con in my Round 3 statement that merely listing a source without explaining what the sources say is not an argument at all. However he has chosen to do the exact same thing again in his attempted rebut of the comments which I made of the multiverse. In fact, some of his own references speak of the controversy surrounding the concept of the multiverse. Likewise, I presented actually scientific documentation from respected scientists to support my view. Some of his documentation however is sloppy at best. The first was an article by Miriam Kramer on Space.com. Apparently he did not read her bio at the bottom of the article. There he would have found that Kramer is NOT a scientist, but rather a staff writer whose apparently biggest scientific claims is that she once went on a zero-gravity flight and floated weightless, that she watched rockets take off, and that she hopes to someday see the Northern Lights. Her job is to report on "space entertainment". “AUTHOR BIO Miriam Kramer: Miriam Kramer joined Space.com as a staff writer in December 2012. Since then, she has floated in weightlessness on a zero-gravity flight, felt the pull of 4-Gs in a trainer aircraft and watched rockets soar into space from Florida and Virginia. She also serves as Space.com's lead space entertainment reporter, and enjoys all aspects of space news, astronomy and commercial spaceflight. Miriam has also presented space stories during live interviews with Fox News and other TV and radio outlets. She originally hails from Knoxville, Tennessee where she and her family would take trips to dark spots on the outsirts of town to watch meteor showers every year. She loves to travel and one day hopes to see the northern lights in person.” I first became aware of the "Icarus" finding on a similar site as this but I did not quote that site here. Rather I researched and discovered the ORIGINAL and quoted from there. The same is true about other of his references as well. This shows shoddy research.As a result in substance, logic and debate technique I have shown a superior understanding than Con. I urge judges to vote for the Pro side of this debate.I wish to thank Con for a lively debate.