A metaphysical Supreme Being exists.

"*I apologize, I never cited the Summa Theologica." Apology accepted. "#1 My Response: This is indeed false. The 5 ways only argue the existence of "A" God. Only until after he proves the only logical way for the universe and its laws to have existed; he will then explain how the Christian God is logical as well. I did not go to that point, I'm just defending the existence of a supreme being." You can argue the existence of "A" God, but Aquinas specifically argues A CHRISTIAN God. In my previous argument I clearly state that what Aquinas is ultimately arguing is different from what my opponent is arguing, and my opponent agrees. Since my opponent has given me his own contention, I'll offer rebuttals of his arguments below. "#2 We both agree that this "Supreme Being" is out of the physical world, i.e. aphysical and atemporal. Therefore, the laws in the natural world, i.e. Argument of Motion and Causation, don't apply. This is where my opponent makes a flaw. [He] is saying that the laws of the natural world are the same no matter what time/space or dimension. Let me go further. These natural laws, according to Thomas Aquinas (One of the founders of natural law theory), explain that the natural laws proceed from non-contingency. Non-contingency is a word meaning, no cause. Therefore, this "Supreme Being" is the only non-contingent being. The natural world, as we know, because of the big-bang is contingent. Thus, a non-contingent being, i.e. the necessary being, had to have started the 2 fundamental principals of natural law, i.e. Motion and causation." First and foremost I'd like to clarify that I NEVER argue that "the laws of the natural world are the same no matter what time/space or dimension", I NEVER even imply that. Second, Aquinas is arguing that contingent things don't come in existence from non-contingent things, but rather the necessity for a non-contingent things, the necessity of something does NOT equal the existence of something ABSTRACT and METAPHYSICAL! In fact Aquinas may be completely wrong, the cause of contingent things can be in itself something which exists in the real universe and not in the metaphysical/abstract and we haven't discovered it yet (this would imply a cycle of contingent things creating each other). The problem is that one can conceive of a non-contingent thing, but the fact that the person actually conceived it makes it contingent... therefore something non-contingent can in fact be produced from a contingent source. That's how we perceived of the existence of a God, or a "supreme being"... so in fact that being by default cannot be non-contingent! "I have 2 response: 1) Just link my 2 points. The universe could not have A)Created itself, or B) Have previously existed, because this would be infinity, which is scientifically, and mathematically impossible." In fact infinity is mathematically and scientifically possible, if anybody has ever had to divide a number by 0 they would notice the result goes to infinity... one can argue that the existence of the universe is an infinite cycle which doesn't have a beginning nor does it have an end. It neither requires a beginning, nor does it require an end, it's just INFINITE. That's a hard concept to grap, and one will ask: "What started the loop" and that question is not valid, because we can't define the end of infinity nor can we define the start of infinity... what the question is asking for is the start of infinity: there is NO SUCH THING! "2) This idea can affirm my side. This is argument of ontology. It states that nothing conceived by the human mind could not exist in some form. Like, people cannot conceive or even make a new color, on the fact that color derives from light. The mind cannot conceive a new color, only a straight forward color, like red, or a mixture like sea-green. We, as people, since the beginning of human history, have conceived the idea of some sort of "god". From the polytheists, to the monotheists, etc. Therefore, you can use my opponents argument against him, since I have proven for a conceived idea to be true, it either is straight forward, or mixture." The idea of a God is truly common amongst people, but the commonality only speaks to the failure of people to explain natural events and they come up with an abstract idea of a being which (in many cases looks like a person) has power that's greater than human power. Again, the lack of knowledge is no reason for the assumption of magic :), none at all. If nothing else history has shown us that we have ALWAYS asserted something supernatural in areas which we lack knowledge, that's the actual pattern; eventually knowledge is gained and that idea is dismissed. If we follow that pattern we can safely assume that the idea of a "metaphysical supreme being" will be dismissed eventually, so why not just do it now? I would agree with my opponent if we conceived of something which wasn't inspired from a previous conception in our mind, God is not one of those things. God, according to the descriptions we've seen, is an old white man with a white beard and in most images he's depicted as such (just search google): http://images.google.com... God possesses things which we have intimate knowledge of: power! God is supposed to be "all powerful", and ontology proves exactly that, we come up conceptions of what we consider "unique" based on "non-unique" ideas which previously existed in our head. To summarize my arguments: 1. A "non-contingent supreme being" is in fact contingent because it was conceived/created by people, which are also contingent. 2. Ontology only proves that people can't come up with truly unique concepts, even if something seems unique, it's still drawn from previous experience and/or knowledge. 3. The universe could be infinite, requiring no beginning and no end, therefore no need for the existence of a "non-contingent" thing. 4. Lack of knowledge in some area does not constitute the need for a supernatural explanation, on the contrary, history has shown us that every time we gain more knowledge we eliminate yet another supernatural explanation (perhaps that's why God banned Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, because they ate the apple from The Tree of Knowledge which threatened his existence). So why not just cut to the chase and seek the knowledge rather than to pacify ourselves with abstract ideas which will eventually be replaced anyway? Thank you!