A metaphysical Supreme Being exists.

Thank you for your last argument, I'll offer my rebuttal again: 1) "You can say that the NON-Existence of a Supreme Being is therefore a fallacy because people conceived this idea. This is really a circular argument which neither affirms or negates, it pretty much neutral." That was precisely my point, believing that something is non-contingent is circular logic, because it was conceived by a person, in essence that person created the non-contingent being thus putting it in "motion". Regardless of how you look at it, I wouldn't advocate the necessity for the existence of things, I was merely entertaining the idea proposed by my opponent to show the circular logic within it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) "Like when I think of God, I don't think of an old man. I think of nothing really, but I see his works, i.e. the universe." The reality is that you still perceive God as something familiar, all powerful, etc. We ascribe things to God which we have identified before, they seem more than human because a human can't perform them but they're still actions which are observed in humans, yet scaled to a greater position. There was a time when people couldn't fly, people couldn't go in outer space, and there was a time where people couldn't do a lot of things which we considered magical at the time. Again, this doesn't help my opponent because it's more likely than not that eventually humans will gain the knowledge needed to do what's considered impossible now. The inevitability of that occurrence is what allows us to remove God from the picture. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) a."By saying this my opponent, indirectly, is saying that time doesn't exist. Time is based on a first prime event, then moves to intermediate events, then to an end. Link to Argument of Motion. Time can only exist if there was a beginning." As a matter of fact time does not exist; it's a concept or a frame of reference, in a sense, which we have devised to measure the change of state of things. People say that we can measure time, but in reality we measure the change of state, the most accurate clock is the atomic clock, which measures the atomic resonance of microwave signals emitted from electrons when they change energy level. Time does not need a beginning, because if the hypothesis of infinite cycle is correct, then time will not have a beginning, yet it can ALWAYS measure the change of state of the infinite universe. "Also, use the "House" example. This is: Say a hotel manager had a hotel with an infinite amount of space. All the rooms are full. A guest comes in and wants a room. Now, its possible to put that guest, however impossible. All the rooms are full, but since its infinite the hotel manager just has to push another room into it. But remember the rooms are full. See that logical dilemma? Something contingent, CANNOT be infinite." The dilemma does not exist, if something is infinite, then it can't be full by default... my opponent's argument shows a logical fallacy. It's like saying: "I found the last number!" and then adding +1 to get the next last number… that's not the concept of infinity, the concept of infinity is that there IS NO LAST NUMBER! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) "However all the examples, like gravity are all natural laws. Its impossible for natural laws to have begun by itself. The beginning is the question." Gravity does not need a beginning, "natural laws" don't need a beginning either, they're just the relationships which occur between the things that exist in the universe at the moment. " My opponent still has not explained how its possible for either: A) The universe to have created itself or B) The possibility of a pre-existing universe. since he has not done this, and I have provided logical evidence to point to a Supreme Being, u can affirm this resolve." That's not necessary since an infinite universe would neither have a beginning nor an end, it infinitely exists, it changes state, but it still exists from infinity to infinity! [CONCLUSION] My opponent has done nothing more than to demonstrate that he can conceive of an idea which is neither real, nor necessary. I have shown that throughout history people have done the exact same thing and have inserted God in every place where human knowledge is insufficient, yet every time human knowledge expands then the idea of God shrinks! I say we remove the pacifier and we go directly for the knowledge which will deliver us to the answers of our questions, skip the unnecessary mythical creatures and imaginary beings.