The Supreme Being Exists
Debate Rounds (5)
Structure of the Debate
Round 1 is for acceptance only. Rounds 2, 3 and 4 are for presentation arguments, rebuttals and conclusion arguments with no definite structure. Therefore, arguments may be presented in any format.
Definitions of the Described Terms
In the used context: (a) "Supreme Being" (noun) is defined as "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority."; (b) "exists" is the third-person present form of "exist", that is defined as, "to have objective reality or being," and is a verb. To further expand on this debate's context of the Supreme Being:
The aforementioned must have sentience and must have a psychological ability to process information in a way that is similar to the human mind. The Supreme Being described above must also have the three primary defining aspects of (a) omnipotence (defined as an abstract noun that means "the state of having the ability to perform any action, natural or supernatural,") and (b) omniscience (defined as an abstract noun meaning, "the state of having absolute, limitless and completely accurate knowledge of everything,"). For further sharp accuracy, "everything" is defined as, "all things", or, in other words, "all forms of scientifically existent or nonexistent matter, antimatter, energy, force or anything existent in the spacetime continuum, and beyond (in a spiritual sense,") but the simpler first definition of "all things" is used in this debate.
The position of "Con" is to be AGAINST the assumption that one Supreme Being (as defined above) exists. The position of "Pro" is to argue FOR the position that a Supreme Being exists. All arguments must strictly be based only on verifiable proof. External sources can be used to strengthen the arguments. Arguments of the Supreme Being as defined above being a force, or any similar positions, are not valid to this debate which is strictly in accordance with the above definitions.
Decent and acceptable conduct must be maintained. Profanity and/or vulgar language of any form is strictly prohibited. Inappropriate, abusive or insulting phrases are unacceptable. Polite etiquette and civil behavior must be maintained. Trolling is strictly forbidden. Any arguments that violate the code of conduct as mentioned here will be reported to DDO and will be removed from the debate.
Thus, any violation of the rules and regulations will result in my immediate 7-point victory.
1. The Oxford Dictionary of English; 2015 Edition (American English)
My position is that the concept of a Supreme Being existing is irrational. For this, here are the proof and the arguments that I present:
1. The Omnipotence Paradox
If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.  By this debate's definition of "omnipotence", the omnipotence referenced here is absolute omnipotence, meaning that there are no limits to the Supreme Being's omnipotence by the terms of this debate. Thus, omnipotence cannot exist.
2. The Omniscience Paradox
(1) If the Supreme Being foreknows of some event E, does E happen necessarily, and (2) if some event E is contingent, how can the Supreme Being foreknow E's occurrence?   Thus, omniscience implies the lack of contingency, and thus, by the definition of the existence of a Supreme Being, means everything is definite. This definitiveness is proof of the universe being completely entwined by order. But according to the thermodynamic measure of entropy, there is more than one way in which a thermodynamic system (eg: a region of the universe) may be arranged.   This arrangement is variable, yet constant in the fact that the varied arrangements may coexist. Thus, there is, by definition, disorder in the universe.  If there is disorder, then only one hypothesis of the possibilities of entropy may be predestined, and not more. Thus, foreknowing all the possibilities is impossible. Therefore, omniscience does not exist.
"Miracle" is defined as "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency."  Miracles are (a) deemed possible and necessary by the laws of omnipotence, and (b) essential attributes of the Supreme Being. But, they are inexplicable by the laws of physics and have no proof to them. Therefore, if the Supreme Being is unable to perform any supernatural action, then he/she may not be considered as the Supreme Being.
4. Russell's Teapot
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.  This analogy also now allows me, having presented the logical rationales for the nonexistence of a Supreme Being, to shift the burden of proof to Pro and theism.
 Savage, C. Wade. "The Paradox of the Stone" Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74–79
 "Purtill on Fatalism and Truth". Faith and Philosophy: 229–234. 1990.
 Viney, Donald Wayne (Spring 1989). "Does Omniscience Imply Foreknowledge? Craig on Hartshorneby". Process Studies (Center for Process Studies) 18 (1): 30–37.
"Carnot, Sadi (1796–1832)". Wolfram Research. 2007. Retrieved 2010-02-24.
 Oxford Dictionary of English, American Edition (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
In particle physics, a gravitational singularity is a point in spacetime with infinite energy density and zero volume, making it extremely condensed with energy.  During the Big Bang, there was a singularity that contained photonic energy (i.e. light energy). The extremely concentrated singularity expanded slightly, releasing heat energy from the friction of the gradually contracting photons. The photons suddenly contracted immediately, producing particles and antiparticles. These gradually became what is known as the universe today.
The Grand Design Question
The question "who/what created the universe?" is often the question posed by theists to cite the existence of a Supreme Being. But, if the answer is the Supreme Being, then the question can merely be deflected to "what created the Supreme Being?"  According to recent research, there CAN be something that created the universe initially. And, according to most physicists, it is the singularity, the initial focus of the Big Bang.
"Intelligence" is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.  Intelligence has displayed itself in the evolution of various species, but the most complex form of intelligence is found in hominids. Hominids evolved from apes and emerged around 7.5 to 5.5 million years ago.  Biologically, such complex intelligence cannot have emerged prior to 7.5 million years ago, but, since the universe was created 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,  an intelligent Supreme Being would have had to have existed before that time, which is biologically impossible.
Scientifically and theologically, the existence of a Supreme Being with the qualities of omniscience and omnipotence is impossible.
 A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
 Moulay, Emmanuel. "The universe and photons". FQXi Foundational Questions Institute. (http://www.fqxi.org...)
 Aguilar, M.; Alberti, G.; Alpat, B.; Alvino, A.; Ambrosi, G.; Andeen, K.; Anderhub, H.; Arruda, L.; Azzarello, P.; Bachlechner, A.; Barao, F.; Baret, B.; Barrau, A.; Barrin, L.; Bartoloni, A.; Basara, L.; Basili, A.; Batalha, L.; Bates, J.; Battiston, R.; Bazo, J.; Becker, R.; Becker, U.; Behlmann, M.; Beischer, B.; Berdugo, J.; Berges, P.; Bertucci, B.; Bigongiari, G. et al. (2013). "First Result from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station: Precision Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5–350 GeV". Physical Review Letters 110 (14): 141102.
 The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow
 Oxford Dictionary of English, American Edition, 2015
 Begun, David R. 2010. Miocene Hominids and the Origins of the African Apes and Humans. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 39: 67 -84
 "Planck reveals an almost perfect universe". Planck.ESA. 2013-03-21. (http://www.esa.int...)
1. I did not state that the Supreme Being was human; I said that the Supreme Being was an intelligent being, that could not have existed before a certain period.
2. IF the Supreme Being exists, then what created this being? If the Supreme Being can self-create, then why can a particle not self-create?  According to physics, a singularity can be created by warped gravitational force that then releases photons; hence, "creating the universe".
3. My proof is by the laws of science. You must PROVE that a Supreme Being can violate the laws of science, or even exists. My proof lies in physics. Pro has not proven anything, and yet, by the Russel's teapot analogy, the burden of proof lies with Pro. Pro has not proven anything, and hence their arguments are void. I have thus PROVEN my arguments with the laws of physics. The existence of a Supreme Being DOES violate these laws of existence. Thus, Pro has not fulfilled the necessary objectives of this debate.
I have no direct arguments for this round, and I extend all my previous arguments since Pro's previous argument is void.
 The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow
1. Pro has still not provided PROOF that the Supreme Being transcends science. Pro just accepted the notion that the Supreme Being exists while rebutting perfectly valid, scientific arguments. What PROOF does Pro have? The laws of physics are laws that apply to everything in existence.  A Supreme Being did NOT create science, as to do that, he would have to be omniscient, which is inexplicable and impossible by the Omniscience Paradox . By the rules of this debate, "All arguments must strictly be based only on verifiable proof."  Pro has seemingly ignored this rule and has not provided ANY verifiable proof.
2. Jesus may not have been lying; he may have spoken in metaphors talking of particle physics' laws .
Since Pro's previous argument was equally void, I extend all my arguments from previous rounds.
Reasons for Victory:
1. Pro DID NOT provide ANY valid proof, and by the rules of Round 1, "any violation of the rules and regulations will result in my immediate 7-point victory." Thus, since Pro has violated the rule "All arguments must strictly be based only on verifiable proof", I am guaranteed my immediate 7-point victory. Even if Pro produces proof in the next round, ALL arguments MUST be BASED ON verifiable proof; the proof will have been provided late, and the arguments will not have been BASED ON them, thus guaranteeing my victory.
2. I had better conduct because of Pro not following the rule mentioned above, and my arguments were more precise. Pro did not use any sources whatsoever. My sources were works by major physicists and dictionaries. Please vote for me. Thanks to @JimmyBoJangles for accepting this debate and for their active participation.
 "Laws of Nature" - Oxford Dictionary of English
 Round 2: The Omniscience Paradox (http://debate.org...)
 Round 1: The Positions (http://debate.org...)
 The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra
 http://gotejas.com... - E Pluribus Unum, What Is Nothing?, and God Does Not Play Dice With The Universe
 God & The New Physics by Paul Davis
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TBR 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no attempt to address or rebut cons arguments, even when Pro said he would "in the next round". Pro made no attempt to resolve the question other than state personal belief.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.