An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

I apologise in advance, this is going to be long:Okay, I had quite a read on your argument, so I will provide a response for each of these sections.Yeah, I'm British so a lot of words with 'Z', like 'apologize', I replace with 'S'. The Burden of ProofWell, I'm not sure how I can prove that God exists as humans do not have that kind of power, though I strongly believe the complexity of the universe itself can be used as evidence to support the concept of a designer, rather than it all happening by chance. The Logical Problem of EvilI don't think that the existence of evil should be used to disprove God's love for everyone, after all, we have different ideas of what's evil and what's not- for example, consider causing the extinction of mosquitos: some might argue that it is a good thing as the number of human deaths by malaria are reduced, on the other hand it could also be seen as immoral because of the disruption of the ecosystem for species with mosquito-based diets and the end of many mosquito lives. Another example: if someone kills a baby, it will never get to live its whole life ahead of it, but it will never get the chance to sin and will instantly go to Jannah/Heaven. What is evil and what is not depends on our perspective of things. However, Allah knows best; he has his own distinction between good and evil, whether you like his methods or not. Obviously, the idea is that God created everything. Some things aren't meant to be used, such as evil. By giving us free will, we are free to live our lives however we want as it is within the boundaries of the laws of the Quran, atleast that's what I (as a Muslim) believe "O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Paradise and eat both of you freely with pleasure and delight of things therein as wherever you will, but come not near this tree or you both will be of the Zalimeen (wrong doers)." (2:35); the story of how Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit or as Christians know it as is the most famous example of being tested on how we behave with free will. Those who do not believe in our Lord will eat the fruit. Those who avoid the fruit will be awarded for their faith and patience. Because of our free will, some of us chose to use evil for own needs, for others, for revenge etc. Not only do people on Earth have free will, Iblis (or Shaytan/Satan) also has free will, he uses temptation to convince people to sin. Allah does not stop Iblis because he has indiscriminately given everyone free will. With the Quran, Allah gives us warning about temptation. If you can read the words of Allah, then you have the chance to abide by the laws and live with the comfort of the idea of Heaven, provided you live your life as a good Muslim by praying, fasting, avoiding that which is forbidden etc.The Paradox of Omnipotence"Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" Yes... I think. If God creates a rock so heavy that even HE can't lift it, couldn't one argue that he has chosen to restrict his abilities? My favourite example of one restricting their abilities is the Superman vs Muhammad Ali issue. Superman entered a boxing match with the famous boxer, on one condition: he had to reduce his superhuman strength. Now, of course Superman probably would have torn him apart with his powers, but he felt like fighting like anyother human. In the end, he lost against Muhammad Ali. As for Jesus microwaving a really hot burrito... well, if he can't eat it, he can't eat it; I don't believe he is omnipotent or that he is even the son of God. So yeah, an omnipotent being wouldn't be subject to our logic because God can do whatever He wants, including restricting himself, which is essentially not wanting to do something. The Cosmological ArgumentOk, I guess this is my fault, I don't think my wording was very good- I apologise for that. I believe in the Big Bang theory, just not all of it, such as: it being created by chance. Yes, the Big Bang theory does not provide an explanation for where that point came from; the Big Bang theory merely explains what happened afterward, and it would be outside of its scope to include an origin for the universe.I don't think you're being fair, if Pro can't explain the origin of the Universe, why am I obligated to provide evidence for something that goes beyond the natural? Coming back to the idea of His omnipotence, we don't have any observable evidence to support the existence, except maybe the universe itself because of how complex it is, I don't see anything observable to prove that everything sprang into existence by itself. However, just because we don't know why the universe began does not mean that Allah (or any divine entity) must exist, and asserting otherwise falls into the “God of the Gaps” mentality, which is a form of the fallacious “argument from ignorance”.I do not intend to argue that because the origin of the universe is not currently fully explained by science, that there is a divine entity; my point was that atheism is as much of a faith as Islam or any other religion. I don't believe it's necessarily irrational for one to live by the "God of the Gaps" mentality, for the only thing that would hypothetically change one's religious view on how the Universe was created is an explanation for all these 'Gaps' and observable evidence, I think that's quite logical thinking, we're currently assuming that God exists until some concrete explanation backed up by solid evidence knocks deism out of our heads, then I will disagree with the existence of God. It's going to have to be a big one.Let's also consider that much of modern physics predicts that “time” came into existence with the Big Bang. If this is true, then there can be no “before” the Big Bang whatsoever; asking what came “before” the Big Bang is nonsensical.I have an idea of what came before the Big Bang: something outside the scope of space, matter, or time i.e. Allah. Even if we accept that time did exist before the Big Bang, there are numerous theories that would allow the universe to come “from nothing”. Consider the Zero-Energy Universe theory. All energy in the universe is balanced, with gravity acting as negative energy and particles acting as positive energy. Consider two sets of two particles: In Set A, they are close together, and have little potential kinetic energy. In Set B, they are far apart, and have much potential kinetic energy. As such, if the universe has zero energy, then it is entirely possible that it was formed as a random quantum fluctuation.Cool story, bro. How do we know God didn't cause this? Sorry, that seemed lazy to type, but I'm reluctant to to holding 'backspace' on that question. Correct me if I'm wrong: Pro is implying that particles and anti-particles were formed out of the vaccum of space. This argument doesn't explain how the universe was created because in order for a quantum fluctuation to occur, there must be a universe in the first place. It doesn't really explain how something came from nothing. No space, no quantum fluctuation.Furthermore, let’s consider the assumption inherent in this argument – that everything that began to exist has a cause. This seems intuitive, but is flawed. First, this belief is an induction, not a philosophical fact, and can never be a philosophical fact, because we cannot have perfect knowledge. Second, it is known that quantum fluctuations have no apparent cause, but are merely temporary energy imbalances that spontaneously form. Furthermore, this assumption requires time to exist to make any sense. Like I said before: no space, no quantum fluctuation. You would be wrong to assume that a quantum fluctuation occured in order for the universe to exist because the required condition for quantum fluctuation is the vaccum of space.For this specific subargument, let’s assume that, in fact, everything that exists requires a cause. Therefore, the OOO must also have a cause, and that cause requires a cause, ad nauseum. As such, this doesn’t solve the problem of infinite causal regress, but just adds extra steps into the already infinite regress.Well, that's a good question, but he is able to defy the laws of physics; he exists outside of time, space and matter, therfore he is eternal in no way bound by his creations. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: “God was [before the creation] and there was nothing else.” Everything is linked to God, no matter how 'uncausable' it may seem, including our cute, little quantum fluctuations <3. And even if a divine First Cause is required, why must that First Cause be OOO? For example, if it must merely be omnipotent, then the existence of an OOO entity is still unproven.I don't understand your point... The Quran says that God created everything, so we believe that God created everything, the Quran doesn't describe quantum fluctuations, so based on the Word of Allah, He created the universe and basically everything. To be honest, if someone came up to me and asked, "How do you know there wasn't The First Creator for The First Creator. I don't know, the idea is that he always existed.2P1B: “God ... is ... not bound by ... time, space or matter. ... (H)e is eternal, having no begining and no end.”These are mere assertions. Even assuming that an OOO god exists, there is no given reason why that OOO god must be eternal.There must have been something eternal to create or initiate the creation of the universe, no question. Even quantum fluctuations need something (the vaccum of space) in order for them to occur. I will put the rest of the argument on to the comment section, since I can't seem to fit all of my argument here.