An all-knowing, all-powerful God does not exist

I worry that voters will be tricked into agreeing with your arguments by way of your improper referencing of scientific concepts. I will do my best to expose the rampant use of fallacious logic and incongruent beliefs. Nearly every point made here can be reduced to a single, invalid claim. I should note that these are all points that Frank Turek made which you, in turn, ripped off and tried to put forth as your own. Much of your argument was lifted word-for-word from Turek. He is infamous for cherry-picking quotes that suit his narrative and completely disregarding context.One overarching flaw stems from your point that 'reason' could not have arisen from evolution and therefore there must be God. However, this is a completely vacuous statement as it gives rise to an infinite loop of nonsense: God gave rise to reason I make use of reason Therefore, there must be God (1, 2) If there is a God, evolution can't be true Evolution is not true (3, 4) Reason is the only source of objective truth I use reason to prove the truth of evolution Evolution is true (6, 7) Contradiction (5, 8) This illustrates the fact that your assertion that reason can only arise from God is a complete non starter. Also, Einstein believed in "reason that manifests itself in nature." Part of your argument (i.e. Frank Turek's argument that you've plagiarized without citation) revolves around the idea that whatever created the universe must not be affected by time, space, or matter. I tried to explain that these concepts are completely irrelevant in discussing what preceded the big bang as they connote things in the 4-dimensional universe we currently exist in. That aside, suppose that there was a being that transcended spacetime. With what modicum of certainty can we state that this must be the God of the Bible? Why not a Muslim or Hindu God? Surely it seems extremely presumptuous to state that your God is the only true God and the Gods defined by scriptures subscribed to by billions of people are false. Even if this God were proven true, what evidence is there that light was created on the first day, fruit-tree bearing fruit on the third, etc? Why could it not have been done in another order? Why could it not have been spread over 14 days? I am not even trying to espouse the general mindset you take here, but using your own arguments against you to reflect the lack of consistency end logic.The first law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation of energy, not related to entropy. Let's clarify for everyone exactly why your referencing the scientific community within SURGE is completely invalid:S - First, you just contradicted yourself because you previously stated that this was the First Law of Thermodynamics (which it is not). Does the fact that the sun will one day burn out show the universe had a beginning? Not at all. Is it true that 'if the universe was infinite, the sun would always have energy'? The universe could hypothetically be infinitely large or infinitely expanding or infinitely timeless without the sun itself being eternal. This certainly does not prove the existence of any God, let alone Creationism.U - Yes, the universe is expanding. Yes, Edwin Hubble made this discovery at CalTech in 1929. However, it is not at all true that all galaxies are slowly moving away from us. Rather, they are rapidly moving away from us, faster than the speed of light. Yes, you're right, scientists still believe that the universe came from a great explosion...scientists. I would hope that in any logical debate, we favor scientists over theologians. Again, this certainly does not prove the existence of any God, let alone Creationism.R - Yes, the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics was won by scientists who discovered cosmic background radiation. When you say, "something must've heated it up", I am tempted to agree, but there are a lot of ways to "heat things up" aside from God. Again, this certainly does not prove the existence of any God, let alone Creationism.G - Does the existence of temperature variations in any way show that God created the universe in its current form? Again, this certainly does not prove the existence of any God, let alone Creationism.E - Einstein, who you invoked, said the following: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being." "A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." "The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." Since your argument is based purely on the contentions of Frank Turek, who I say again, you failed to credit, let's look closer at just one of his arguments and faulty logic: The 'sunshine' analogy you've brought is completely flawed. Shadows are caused by the blocking or absence of (sun)light in an area where there would otherwise be (sun)light. However, evil is not at all what happens when good is removed or blocked. Suppose a charity whose directive you oppose is short on funding. Donating would be "good", but not donating (and thus blocking the "good") would by no means be evil. This analogy is invalid. Also, in a more literal sense, there can clearly be shadows without sunshine. Shadows can be caused by light bulbs, fires, projectors, etc. This, of course, doesn't mean the collapse of his entire acronym schema, it just reflects a fundamental gap in understanding of logic and reason. Let's go through objections to Turek's claims (not yours): C - Turek is famous for saying, "I believe in the big bang. I just know who banged it." Does the universe need a "who" banged it? Does an ocean need someone who ocean-ed it? Does a cloud need someone who cloud-ed it? As Bob Seidensticker observed, Turek loves to take quotes out of context. He cites Vilenkin: "With the proof now in place...they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." However, on the next page, Vilenkin says, "The theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist." R - Turek (and therefore you) cites Darwin agreeing with this point on reason. This is not a history lesson. It is a discourse on scientific fact. We are not confined to what Darwin says about evolution in any way. Turek: "If you’re an atheist, you can’t justify reason.” So...Christians can? You criticized the point that reason could've evolved to effect communication. This very illogical based on your further premises. I didn't say evolution "meant" to create reason. I said that reason and effective communication were tools that allows our ancestors to survive better. The basic tenet of evolution is that genes expressed in such a way as to promote survival and procreation are the ones that become widespread. I - You mentioned that scientists think we evolved "from" single-celled amoeba. This isn't exactly true. They say we share a "common ancestor" with them. Beyond that, this is the place from where you lifted the alphabet cereal, Library of Congress, and "code comes from coders" part of your argument. This all speaks to both your and his misconception that evolution is based primarily on randomness, whereas it's actually based on mutation and natural selection (which is by no means random).M - Turek says there can't be morality (especially universal morality) without some sort of intelligent creator. I don't have the space to elaborate, but I would urge you to look into universally held moral programming. I'm a bit confused as to how the Holocaust supports your/Turek's notion of morality. Also, how is it that God created objective morality when we have things like slavery being abolished even though it was condoned by scripture. It seems Turek possesses a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between morality and absolute or objective morality. More in this in future rounds. Oh, and this is also the place you stole the overgrown germs quote from, again without citation.E - Again, this entire argument is based on the assumption that objective morality exists, which I never said it does. If you remove this assumption, there is no argument.S - This is a very curious one. Turek, in a mind-boggling, absurd claim, states that science proves God. This is interesting given that less than one-third of the scientific community believes in God, which is a) way less than the rest of the population and b) all gods, not just the Christian one (Pew Research Center). Scientific fact is, practically by definition, a consensus among well-reasoned, logical observationists. Religion, clearly, is not. You need look no further than the abundance of contradictory religions that exist in the world today, many of whose adherents are at war.It is now clear that you have stolen practically all of your argument from someone else without giving credit. This includes word-for-word plagiarism that you pretend you came up with. Even within that framework, I believe I have made clear just a few of the many inherent inconsistencies and logically invalid claims made in the service of proving Creationism to be true.Thanks!