The quantum fluctuations arguement dissproves the existence of God.

Now for rebuttals to cakerman's claims in Round 2: 1. You ask the reader, which is everybody else and me, "Why is it that the big bang must have a cause, but God mustn't?" You answer it very well in your next sentence: God has always existed. Then you say that proclaiming this argument is unfair and flawed. First off, no, it is not unfair. We are talking about God here, and God's definition is the tri-Omni (infinite power, knowledge, and presence.) If he does not display these three attributes, then he is not God by definition. By accepting this debate, you should already have acknowledged that God is supposedly the Supreme Being with infinite power, knowledge, and presence. If you accept this debate and do not acknowledge that God is not the supreme being and etc., than we are no longer debating God, just a finite creature like you and me. If you do not accept the common definition of God, than we can go no further. 2. "Something had to have existed before God," as you claim. No, in fact, it is the opposite. Nothing can exist BEFORE God, and if something did, than "God" is not God. 3. "God isn't subjected to the rules of time and to that I ask, why not?" Because he is the supreme being and is all-powerful, so he can dodge subjection of time if he so pleases. I don't understand how either. There's a lot about God that we don't know, just the same that there is a lot about science that we don't know. 4. "nor has it ever been done [proving God]." True. That what faith is for. Science and you have come no closer to disproving God, or confirming that quantum fluctuations/Big Bang are the start of it all. 5. "In order for a God to exist there must be an event that created the space in which this God exists, right?" No, because God is outside of space and time. And if you ask why again, then I'll just say again that he's the Supreme Being. We are talking about GOD, after all, not just me or you. We may not understand how, because we are not omniscient. But God is. 6. " Maybe science has not gone far enough as to explain the phenomenon that is The Big Bang." Yes, it hasn't. People bash religion for acting on assumptions and faith, and yet science does the same thing. Religion has already reached a conclusion about the creation of the universe, science is still not sure completely. 7. "I am saying that there are physical things in which science cannot logically explain using The Laws of Physics yet." Have you ever thought that maybe the Laws of Physics have not explained God yet? 8. "By saying that a God does not need a cause because he is an omniscient being with no rules or regulations you're accepting a case of quantum fluctuation in a sense, and you're also making your argument idiot proof." First off, yes, I do accept a case of quantum fluctuation in a sense, I'm just saying that even if I do it does not disprove God. Second off, yes, this arguments is idiot proof, and honestly you should have taken that into account before accepting. 9. " 'he has always been around, and doesn't need to be caused by something', but that logically is just wrong." You have not clearly explained how it is wrong, and since we can not understand God, than we can not induce logic-yet. 10. "You cannot say that god [sic] was created just as life on earth was created because then, by that logic there was still something that predates it." God, again, was not created. If he is, than he is not God. Nothing can predate him, that is an impossible argument you can make against God. If you make that point, you are arguing not against God but just another ordinary, "un-supreme" being. Conclusion: cakerman has fought as best as he could, but should of ultimately not even joined this debate. I will admit that the burden of proof is strongly on Pro, but hey, I didn't force anyone to accept this debate. cakerman claims that this debate is unfair because I just say God is tri-Omni, so my argument is foolproof. Yep, pretty much is foolproof... maybe you should've seen that before accepting. It is not "unfair," however. Let's say I had a debate that said "Spider-Man is a super-hero." You accept the debate arguing that he is not. I claim that, because he helps people and fight villains than he is. You claim that this is an unfair argument because it not only disproves your argument, but it is undeniably true. Spider-Man fight criminals, and God is tri-Omni, both are undisputable fact. To say that this fact is unfair to use in a debate is honestly a trash statement; if anything that's unfair to me. Ultimately I have not proved nor do I really have anyway of proving that God exists. Just saying that quantum fluctuations does not disprove God does not necessarily prove him, as someone suggested that I was suggesting in the comments. As of right now, it is difficult to prove God exists, and impossible to prove that he doesn't. I just wanted to tackle quantum fluctuations, and we got off topic but oh well.. Other than that, good rap battle.