A metaphysical Supreme Being exists.

My opponent gives a bunch of definitions. However this is the breakdown, metaphysical also includes the atemporal aphysical. I.e. metaphysical. My opponent says that: concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth. -I agree He then says: BY DEFINITION if something is metaphysical it can't be supreme, it can't be a being and it can't exist. Metaphysical things, from a philosophical standpoint, are abstract thoughts or subjects, as such they're non existent beyond the mind in which they're conceived. Even if one shares that thought with another person, even if the other person accepts it to be true, it still remains nothing more than a concept which does not exist beyond the minds of those people. My opponent is indeed false. I can conceive the idea of a supreme frog, the king all frogs. Since its an abstract thought, and I conceive that its supreme, then its possible to be both. You can drop my opponents whole argument. Also, as an observation of his argument, he is debating topicality rather then the actual substance. He has not disproved the idea of a Supreme Being. I will now explain how the scale tips to the side of the existence of a supreme being by using logic and science. Contentions: I. Motion It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. II. Causation The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Syllogism: 1) The universe had a beginning, i.e. the Big Bang 2) This event needed a cause 3) A Supreme being was the catalyst of the big bang Going back to a phrase my opponent said: "but existence of the world around us is not in question and is an ENTIRELY different debate." My Response: Exactly, my opponent claims that the existence of the world is not in question. He says however its a different debate. It is not, on the fact that something aphysical and atemporal is NECESSARY for that existence. Link my 2 contentions to this assertion of my opponent. You can affirm right here. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.