The "Supreme Being" MUST exist
I will be relying primarily on logic and science.
The first round is acceptance only.
4th round is for summary only. No new arguments are to be presented.
I accept. The burden of proof relies on Pro, as he is making the positive claim. Good luck.
Most theists believe that there is only one God and that He is the "Supreme Being". That has been defined as "that which there can be nothing greater", or the "greatest being". Logically the greatest being MUST exist.
Of all the men that exist in the world only ONE can be "the strongest man in the world" or "the fastest man in the world", even if no one knows who he is. In the same way of all the beings that exist within the universe only ONE can be "the greatest being in the universe" and of all the beings that do exist inside or outside of the universe only ONE can be "the greatest being in or out of the universe whether they be physical or non-corporal". Therefore logically the "Supreme Being" or "that which there can be nothing greater" must in fact exist. Please note that I am not using Anselm"s argument of "the best that can be imagined" but rather the more practical argument of "the best that actually is".
Theists BELIEVE the Supreme Being to have specific attributes. We believe Him to be transcendent (not a part of the universe), immanent (involved in the affairs of the world), omnipotent (capable of doing all that He wills to do that is not self-contradicting), omnipresent, omniscient (having all knowledge), and the creator of the universe. Certainly we may be wrong in that assessment... the "Supreme Being" inside or outside the universe could be Fred, the guy who picks up my recycling on Thursdays and who has no special attributes at all. But an the examination of the universe, its form and structure, that life sprang from the non-living and intelligence sprang from the non-intelligent, the huge list of "outside the normal" events both past and present, and even the fulfilled prophesies found in texts which we call "Sacred" have proved to theists that the Supreme Being MUST have these attributes.
Recent scientific studies can also be seen to be on my side in this. Last year two different studies were released which if treated logically together can be seen to be a strong indication of the existence of God.
The first was a study released in the premier scientific journal "Icarus" . The scientists involved were studying a problem brought to them by SETI. What it concludes is that terrestrial DNA was in fact "intelligently designed". As a result there are only two logical conclusions: either our DNA was programmed by an alien intelligence from within our universe, or that the programming was done by a supernatural intelligence from beyond our universe. Also note that the code is not designed simply to pass along biological date but non-biological information as well. The last sentence of the abstract above reads: "Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information."
The second study also released last year was the result of a three year study by Oxford University in 20 different nations. It concluded that humans are in fact PREprogrammed to believe in God and in an afterlife. It basically is stating that to believe in God is as much a part of human nature as breathing is. History and anthropology have proved that man has sought God from the very beginning of the species. So this is not some sort of learned behavior that was passed on, but rather something encoded in our DNA from man's beginnings.
When you take this study with the first one I think it is clear to see the logical implications. Of the two choices give us as the result of the "intelligent design" of our DNA in the first study, alien race or supernatural intelligence, the far more likely becomes the supernatural intelligence. Likewise the first study showed that non-biological information could be passed along. The second study shows that to believe in God was a part of our DNA. This is non-biological information which the first study has shown can be passed along. So we are left with one question concerning an alien species doing the programming: Why would an incredibly advanced alien species program us to believe in a God which they themselves did not believe in? As a result in either case it strongly affirms the existence of God, or the Supreme Being.
In addition, scientists have encountered a "wall of numbers" which are the incredible odds against the natural occurrence of chains of events which had to happen for life to occur in the universe:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron ". The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." -- Stephen Hawking 
Although an atheist, Hawking acknowledges that the universe is "finely adjusted". The simple fact is that something cannot be finely adjusted without an intelligence to do the adjusting.
Comments from other scientists:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." -- Sir Fred Hoyle
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." -- Robert Jastrow (agnostic) 
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think a scientifically proven fact." " Robert Jastrow.
"If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a "creation" of some sort is forced upon us." - Barry Parker 
So what do these scientists (and many, many more) show us? Please note that they are NOT talking about the planet Earth but rather the origins of the UNIVERSE, and that they are acknowledging an intelligence beyond our comprehension who is responsible for "finely tuning" the universe to allow for life. As a result this eliminates the idea of the intelligence being an alien lifeform simply because an alien from within the universe could not create the universe. It therefore necessitates that the "Supreme Being" is a transcendent intelligence. To create the universe logically necessitates that He also be omnipotent and omniscient.
 as quoted by B. Durbin, "A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow," Christianity Today, Vol. 26, 6 August 1982, p. 15
 "Creation"the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe"
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202
I would like to thank Pro for a very thought provoking debate.
“I will be arguing that the Supreme Being must exist and that He is the likely the creator of the universe and thus is omnipotent (capable of doing all that He wills to do that is not self-contradicting), transcendent (not a part of the universe), immanent (involved in the affairs of the world), omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient (having all knowledge).”
How is Pro going to do this? He says:
"I will be relying primarily on logic and science."
Ok, let’s use logic and science
First, he made the notion that an intelligent Being created the universe. This would mean that his existence before the universe is irrefutable. However, we know that space and time were also created with and within the universe. Therefore, ‘before’ wouldn’t exist because time didn’t exist. According to Pro, however, God is outside the universe. Nobody even knows if there is an “outside” of the universe, and this claim is unfalsifiable. On that premise alone he cannot win this debate. He also declares that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all loving), and omniscient (all knowing). This, along with his claims that God is involved in world affairs, is not logical in the slightest.
I saw nothing scientific in Pro’s opening statement other than a few cherry picked quotes from scientists. Physicists and cosmologists agree that there is no reason to believe a god created the universe. Astrophysicist Alex Fillipenko of the University of California is one of them stating “The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there,” and “With the laws of physics, you can get universes.” One of the more prominent physicists in history, Stephen Hawking also agrees "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."
My opponent used this quote from Hawking, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron ". The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life,"and followed it up with “Although an atheist, Hawking acknowledges that the universe is "finely adjusted". The simple fact is that something cannot be finely adjusted without an intelligence to do the adjusting.”
I think it’s quite easy to see that my opponent misrepresented the quote. When Pro states that something cannot be finely adjusted without intelligence, claims that as a fact, and attributes this “fact” to Stephen Hawking who is an atheist and has said repeatedly that the universe does not need a god to explain it. I must say, that is quite a stretch. He provides no evidence behind his claim that a finely adjusted universe needs an intelligence behind it.Science can explain the origins of the universe in several theories, each of which is more likely than Pro’s claim, and none of them defy scientific law or theoretical physics. I have yet to see any evidence from Pro where God is theoretically possible in terms of science.
While Pro made the positive assertion that a Supreme Being must exist, and he has to prove that, he also stated that this ‘Being’ is likely the creator of the universe. I’ll provide more likely scenarios.
The Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang is without a doubt the most widely excepted theory of the origins of the universe. Theist are quick to point out the enigma of TBBT. It explains what happened moments after the formation of the universe but not what caused it. Here is where God would come in. I’m not ready to make that enourmous assumption. There is a more plausible theory available, The Big Crunch.
The Big Crunch
The Big Crunch is a possible scenario that explains the universe’s origin. In this scenario, the expanding universe eventually reaches a point where it reverses itself and begins collapsing. It will ultimately end in a black hole singularity and resulting in another Big Bang. If this scenario were true, the answer for the universe has its answer.
Cosmologists Andy Coley and Bernard Carr are suggesting that some primordial black holes predate the Big Bang. This would lend credence that the Big Bang was not just a singular event, and could have possibly been created in a prior Big Crunch. It would also explain why the Earth randomly gets blasted with unknown gamma ray busts. Of course this is just speculation, as we cannot prove primordial black holes even exist, but the BOP is on Pro and I’m offering up more likely scenarios.
Edward Witten proposed M-Theory, which takes the 5 superstring theories and combines them into one theoretical scenario which would have 11 dimensions (10 space, 1 time).
There are many multiverse scenarios that could be theoretically possible. Theoretical physicist Brian Greene lists nine of them. Due to character limitations I won’t be able to explain those theories. Just note, these are all possible according to theoretical physicists. Pro’s scenario is not.
My opponents claim.
This argument is flawed on several levels. First, while I agree there has to be only one “strongest man” in the world, and one “fastest” man in the world, these two individuals are not going to be the same person. So, who would be considered the greater of these two? They both have specific areas where they are the ‘supreme’, but being “the greatest being in the universe” is an illogical statement that is incomprehensible. My opponent didn’t make it clear on what constitutes “greatest”? And besides, thereare other ideas which have as much or nearly as much ambiguity as the idea of a “Greatest Being” allegedly has. What about the concept of the “Greatest Pizza” or the “Greatest Friend”?His examples are also irrelevant when talking about a transcendent, all powerful being. Time, as we know it, is limited to within the universe. Pro has made the claim that God transcendent (outside of the universe), rendering him infinite. Infinity is a concept that the human mind cannot fully grasp. We live in a world with numbers, therefore making his examples meaningless. We know there are roughly 7 billion people in this world. To say one has to be “the strongest” or “the fastest” is to say if everyone got a lottery ticket, there will be a winner. That is logically understandable. To say a being has to be the “Greatest” just raises more questions.
Due to character limitations, I will finish my rebuttal next round.
Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation: 
Con leaves gaping holes in both logic and science in his statement and totally ignores the scientific discoveries which I presented that are one of the bases of my argument.
His opening statement misquoted what I said my goal was. My first notion was NOT as he said that an Intelligent Being created the universe but rather that a Supreme Being MUST exist. This I have logically shown. I then built the case by use of science and logic that this Supreme Being is likely to be the Creator, and therefore has all the other attributes which are generally assigned to Him. As I clearly stated it was NOT my goal to “prove” that the Supreme Being HAS these attributes, but rather I said “is likely” to have them. However that the “greatest” or the “Supreme Being” exists is, as I have pointed out, a logical no-brainer.
Con then relies on a number of illogical statements to attempt to rebuff the logic that a “greatest being” must exists. In referring to my statement that this Supreme Being could have been responsible for the creation of the universe he said:
“This would mean that his existence before the universe is irrefutable. However, we know that space and time were also created with and within the universe. Therefore, ‘before’ wouldn’t exist because time didn’t exist. According to Pro, however, God is outside the universe. Nobody even knows if there is an “outside” of the universe, and this claim is unfalsifiable. On that premise alone he cannot win this debate.”
He claims here that an “outside of the universe” cannot be shown, and that because our space/time was created with the universe there can be no “before” but then later in reference to the Big Crunch, M theory and the mulverse theory he states that other dimensions and universe with their own time-line DO exist. His own later statements disprove what he states here. As a result he shows logical inconsistency. To quote my opponent “On that premise alone he cannot win this debate.”
He then proceeds to attempt to use a variation of the illogical Epicurean conflict of evil and the omnipotence of God as a rebuff of my logical statement of the existence of a Supreme Being. While it was my intention to leave theology out of this debate, he has introduced the topic so I must comment. His statement is illogical on two fronts. First of all being omnipotent or omnibenevolent are ATTRIBUTES which theists BELIEVE God to have. As I stated we may be wrong in that assumption, but not having a particular attribute does not disprove the existence of God. I have however shown that it is LIKELY (as my Round 1 paragraph stated) to have them. Secondly for a statement to be logical ALL of the premises must be totally correct. Both he, Epicurus and Sam Harris whom he cited failed in this. His second premise states: “An omnibenevolent being will eliminate evil when it can.” This statement is untrue. The Bible (and other religion’s Sacred texts) state that God CREATED evil but also condemns it when we do it. So the question is “Why would God create evil?” The answer is fairly obvious in that we would never have the free choice to do good unless we had the free choice to do evil. If we are here to learn how to love, then love by its very nature cannot be forced. It must be first learned then freely given. For all we know the physical reality is nothing but a classroom. But the simple fact that God could have had a profound reason for evil renders the “Epicurean paradox” and all of its variations illogical.
In his “Science” section Con totally ignores the scientific evidence I presented from the “Icarus” study concerning the fact that the terrestrial DNA was “intelligently designed” and the second scientific study carried out by Oxford University which showed that humans are predisposed to believe in God.  As stated the first study leaves us with two choices… that terrestrial DNA was designed by an alien species within the universe or a supernatural intelligence from beyond the universe. The second study about our predisposition to believe in God suggests that of the two choices left us by the first study that the choice that the programming was done by a supernatural being from outside of the universe is the more likely. As these studies were left completely unanswered and unchallenged by Con then judges would be forced to conclude that I won the points which were made.
He also misrepresented my use of Stephen Hawking’s quote that the universe seems to be “finely adjusted”. As I stated I am fully aware that Hawking is an atheist and does have what he claims are “explanations” for the cause of the universe. My reference to him was totally on the basis of what seems to be his own “Freudian slip” in the use of the word “adjusted”. Adjustment cannot take place without an “adjustor”. I went on to cite other prominent scientists who essentially said the same thing. My opponent chose to dismiss them all under the category of “cherry picking” with NO discussion of what the quotes actually said. It was the statements by these scientists and others which form the basis of support for my discussion on what could be seen as evidence for the existence of a supernatural intelligence. I believe a fair judge would carry this point to my side as well.
In his “explanation” of scientific theories that could explain away the “fine adjustment” found in the universe I find it interesting that he begins with the “Big Crunch” and the cycle of the universe. I would guess that Con is unaware that this theory is far older than he suspects as it is a Hindu religious concept dating from about 500 B.C.  It is also interesting that he is affirming one of the quotes from scientists which I previously cited but he dismissed:
"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." -- Robert Jastrow (agnostic)
The essential flaw in the cycle theory is that all it does is push the necessity of a FIRST cause to that far, far distant past. But the necessity of a FIRST cause remains. Something cannot spring from absolutely NOTHING. So from where did the original “something” come from?
His reference to M-Theory can be dismissed as he made no statement as to what conclusions could be drawn from this theory. Simply listing the name of something that MAY support a position without any indication of how it supports it is a misuse of references.
He then uses as support of one of the most bizarre and controversial scientific theories, that of the multiverse. While this was also done without any explanation of how it supports his contention and could be dismissed, I will comment as this is what was advanced by Hawking in an effort to explain away the “fine-tuning”. This theory is essentially the same as the old concept of billions of monkeys on typewriters eventually writing the complete works of Shakespeare. Our universe just happened to be in the lucky one that got everything right. However the fact is that the billions of monkeys would produce nothing but gibberish unless an intelligence was there to show one monkey what keys to press. So to explain away how a single universe could spring into being from nothing they credit as “possible” that BILLIONS of universes sprang into being from nothing, and then life sprang from nothing, then intelligence sprang from nothing.
Occam’s Razor states that least complicated solution is most often the correct one. The scientists involved with the Icarus study came to the conclusion that an intelligence was involved based on the math in DNA sequencing which was impossible to occur naturally. Science is faced with far greater numbers in the creation of the universe. Rather than simply admit that an intelligence is possible they create the improbable notion of billions of universes all of which sprang from nothing to try to explain it away with no proof or even the possibility of proof. It is no wonder that many legitimate scientists consider the multiverse theory to be “pseudoscience”.
“The multiverse hypothesis is a source of disagreement within the physics community. Physicists disagree about whether the multiverse exists, and whether the multiverse is a proper subject of scientific inquiry…. In contrast, critics such as David Gross, Paul Steinhardt,] George Ellis and Paul Davies have argued that the multiverse question is philosophical rather than scientific, or even that the multiverse hypothesis is harmful or pseudoscientific.”
Con overlooks the fine-tuning found does NOT indicate that we are adapted to the universe but rather that the universe has been adapted to us. The multiverse theory is but an attempt to NOT acknowledge an active intelligence.
“...it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us. Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.” 
Summary in next round.
My opponent used mistruths and logical fallacies to rebut my arguments. He has asked for the judges to “conclude” that he won those points. I would like to point out that the Burden of Proof is on Pro, and even if he did “win” those points, it does nothing to prove his resolution. Here is a Logical Fallacy list I will be referencing when I use (LF:...) http://rationalwiki.org...
False Claims - Pro’s First Paragraph
“Con leaves gaping holes in both logic and science in his statement and totally ignores the scientific discoveries which I presented that are one of the bases of my argument.” (LF: Strawman)
My logic is backed by science, and I did not ignore Pro’s “scientific discovery” argument. If he had read the summery in my opening statement, he would have seen where I clearly stated “Due to character limitations, I will finish my rebuttal next round.”
Supreme Being Must Exist –Pro’s 2nd Paragraph
He claims that he has logically shown that a Supreme Being must exist, and called it a “logical no-brainer.” If he is referring to his “Only one man can be ‘the strongest man in the world” argument (LF: Non Sequitur, Composition/Division) as logically showing that a Supreme Being MUST exist, then I would just disagree. He provides no evidence for this claim.
ILLogical? - Pro’s 3rd Paragraph
When I made the statement that God could not create the universe before time, because “before time” is an illogical concept, Pro called that an illogical statement. Nothing about that statement was illogical, and its main premise was to show that Pro’s claim was unfalsifiable. An unfalsifiable claim means confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Pro says: “ He claims here that an “outside of the universe” cannot be shown, and that because our space/time was created with the universe there can be no “before” but then later in reference to the Big Crunch, M theory and the mulverse theory he states that other dimensions and universe with their own time-line DO exist.” (LF: Strawman)
It is fact that an outside of the universe cannot currently be shown. It is fact that space and time were created with the universe. It is NOT fact however that I “STATED” that other dimensions and universes DO exist. I never once made a positive claim for any hypothesis. Pro argues that I am logically inconsistent because some of the theories that I mentioned directly contradicted one another. Maybe Pro doesn’t understand that he holds the BURDEN OF PROOF, and it is not my job to make a truth claim, but rather provide alternatives for his. Whether or not they contradict each other is irrelevant. They are all theoretically possible, unlike his God claim; therefore I profess them to be more likely.
Epicurean Paradox – Pro’s 4th Paragraph
Pro calls my Epicurean Paradox argument illogical. He wrote a nice sized paragraph addressing it, but he conveniently left out half of my argument. He only addressed the problem with evil. The second half, I made the argument that an all powerful, all loving god that allows WARS, NATURAL DISASTERS, and FAMINE couldn’t exist. That has nothing to do with free will or evil. A tri-omni god, by definition is a perfect being. A perfect being would create a perfect world, without natural disasters and hunger. A world that is 70% water, yet only 2.5% is drinkable is far from ideal. If a perfect being did create an imperfect world, it would mean the being is not perfect. Then Pro says this:
“While it was my intention to leave theology out of this debate, he has introduced the topic so I must comment.”
This is an erroneous statement. Not only did he describe the Christian God in the resolution, but in his opening statement, he made several theological references by calling this “Being” God, with a capital ‘G’, implying the Abrahamic god. Pro said in his opening: “Theists BELIEVE the Supreme Being to have specific attributes. We believe Him to be transcendent (not a part of the universe), immanent (involved in the affairs of the world), omnipotent (capable of doing all that He wills to do that is not self-contradicting), omnipresent, omniscient (having all knowledge), and the creator of the universe.” Yet he claims that I introduced theology to the debate.
I think it is also worth noting that when defending his position against my ‘Epicurean Paradox’ argument he specifically used the Bible as his defense, and his source. I don’t think we can question which god that Pro is claiming to exist. I will say, he did mention “other religious texts”, but only the Bible was cited by name and source. I’d like to point out that the Bible is not evidence unless he can prove the Bible’s validity.
Science – Pro’s 5th Paragraph
Pro accuses me of ignoring his scientific evidence of the “Icarus” study and his predisposition of God arguments. Again, false accusation due to not reading my summery. In terms of the SETI biological code claim, I find it fascinating. If it were true, it still wouldn’t prove that a ‘Supreme Being must exist.’ I am intrigued to hear what the scientists’ final conclusions are. Unfortunately, they don’t have conclusions yet. “To prove it, and pass the designer label test, a pattern found would have to be statistically significant, and have features that are non consistent with natural processes.” http://www.viralnovelty.net...
As for Pro’s second point, I have an article that directly refutes his study. Konika Banerjee and Paul Bloom from the Department of Psychology at Yale University claim that there is no evidence in “hardwiring”, and there are other explanations. They say that there is no reason to believe that children are predisposed to believe in God. http://download.cell.com...
Fine-tune/Multiverse – Pro’s 6-11 paragraphs
Again Pro accuses me of overlooking his argument. This time it's regarding fine-tuning and a particular Stephen Hawking quote. I also 'failed' to address other scientists with the same mindset. I was curious about the context of the quote, so I clicked on his resource link. I was directed to a college site with just a list of quotes and still no context. Upon further research, I discovered this quote was from Hawking’s book ‘A Brief History of Time’. It was written in 1988. That was 7 years prior to the Hubble Deep Field images which resulted in a much greater understanding of the Cosmos.
Dr. Sean Carroll, a Theoretical Physicist at Caltech argues against the “fine-tuning” theory. “I will start granting [that life couldn’t exist with different conditions]. Once someone tells me the conditions under which life can exist.” “We just don’t know whether life could exist if the conditions of the universe were very different because we only see the universe that we see.” https://www.youtube.com...
Pro claims that in the cyclical theories of the universe, it would require a First Cause. Then he says “Something cannot spring from absolutely NOTHING. So from where did the original “something” come from?” Actually, something can come from nothing. Quantum fluctuations have proved that the energy in space can briefly violate the law of conservation energy and create subatomic particles. We know this from empirical evidence.
Pro is the one that claimed something could not come out of nothing. So how does he explain where his “god” came from? (LF: Special Pleading) It's hypocritical to use that logic to battle my arguments but ignore it when it shoots his down.
He says the multiverse theory is “one of the most bizarre and controversial scientific theories” and later “The multiverse theory is but an attempt to NOT acknowledge an active intelligence.” (LF: Arg. from Incredulity) Apparently Pro doesn’t realize that the multiverse theory has quite a bit of evidence supporting it, or he won't admit that it's a prediction of well-established science.
Pro uses Occam’s Razor as an argument for his favor because he claims the “God” hypothesis is the much simpler explanation. I would disagree with that assessment. He doesn’t acknowledge that we have no supernatural precedents by which to evaluate the probability of his god proposal. The possibilities that I introduced are either theoretically possible by our current understanding of scientific law, or already have some empirical evidence.
As for the ‘other quotes’ that I didn’t address, I don’t feel that I need to. Some scientists may agree with Pro, but most don't. The quotes offer no evidence, just opinions.
I would also like to remind the judges that the debate was limited to 10,000 characters per round. If my opponent’s comments did not fit within that requirement he should have, as I had to do, edit them rather than state he would “continue them in the next round” thus by the terms of the debate give me no opportunity to answer them. I also find I must remind judges what the topic of the debate was and thus must repeat my opening statement. I stated:
“I will be arguing that the Supreme Being must exist and that He is the likely the creator of the universe and thus is omnipotent (capable of doing all that He wills to do that is not self-contradicting), transcendent (not a part of the universe), immanent (involved in the affairs of the world), omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient (having all knowledge). I will be relying primarily on logic and science.”
All of the things I have stated I would do, I have done. The ONLY point in which I have the “burden of proof” is that of the existence of the “Supreme Being” which I have LOGICALLY shown. I did not state that this Being definitely HAS particular attributes, but rather it is LIKELY to have them. I need only give a reasonable argument to show that He does have these attributes. Con likewise has continually relied on trying to twist the subject of the debate to something else. I did not say, as he said, that I would be providing scientific “proof” of the Supreme Being. Nor did I ever say in the entire debate that I was arguing a case, as he said, about “the Christian God”. The capitalization of any name or title is proper English. “God” is the name that we use to indicate the “Supreme Being”. Many religions other than Christianity refer to God as the “Supreme Being.” I made reference not only to Christian teachings but Hindu and Buddhist teachings as well.
I have LOGICALLY shown that a “Supreme Being” MUST exist. The definition which I used for the Supreme Being is “that which there can be nothing greater”. Logically a “Supreme” or “Greatest” Being (inside or outside the universe whether physical or non-corporal) must exist because there must be a “greatest”.
As I said my opening statement stated that this being was LIKELY to have particular attributes. Never did I state as Con said that I would “scientifically prove” that this Being does have particular attributes, but rather was LIKELY to have them. This I have shown via recent scientific studies and statements by scientists which Con chose to completely ignore. That an “intelligence” was responsible for programming terrestrial DNA I showed by the study in “Icarus” scientific journal. That this intelligence was more likely to be supernatural in origin rather than an alien intelligence from our universe I showed with the Oxford University study which concluded that humans are predisposed to believe an God and an afterlife. That the universe itself displays a fine-tuning was shown by the numerous scientists of all religious or non-religious backgrounds who have studied it. This I showed. I likewise showed that if the universe was in fact a creation of the Supreme Being that He MUST have all of the attributes such as omnipotentence, etc. which I spoke about. Thus I have fulfilled all what I said I would do in my opening statement.
In counter to the actual arguments which I made and statements by scientists Con initially said virtually NOTHING. He chose to ignore completely the two studies which formed one the two of the scientific basis of my argument. In any legitimate debate arguments which are overlooked give points to Pro, nor can these points be revisited by Con later in the debate because Pro would be unable to rebuff any counter arguments in the Summary where no new arguments may be made.
Of my other arguments he said nothing other than the “greatest” cannot be known and then completely dismissed at all of the statements by scientists which I gave by calling them “cherry picking”. These statements formed another scientific basis for my argument. Con seemingly is relying on HUGE headlines to emphasis what he is saying, but then fails to apply any substance to his statements. In his counter he mentioned, but did not explain how the various theories he mentioned actually support his view, relying on with all but one something akin to “I do not have enough room to discuss them here.” He had the same amount of room which I did. The one he did explain, that of the cycle of the universe, I have no objection to as it was a religious concept long before it was a scientific one, and it does not explain the necessity of an absolute FIRST cause. It just pushed the issue into the remote past. He relies on illogical statements and contradicts himself in his arguments. As I pointed out if any one premise is shown to be false in a supposedly logical argument then the statement fails. I have shown how the “Epicurean paradox” and its variations do contain such false statements as it does not allow that God has a PURPOSE for the creation of evil which I then explained. This he essentially agreed when he acknowledged but did not comment on my statement on the possible purpose of evil. But then he switched his attention to other evils such as “war, natural disasters and famine” and repeated the exact same language which was already shown to be illogical. He said:
“Pro calls my Epicurean Paradox argument illogical. He wrote a nice sized paragraph addressing it, but he conveniently left out half of my argument. He only addressed the problem with evil. The second half, I made the argument that an all powerful, all loving god that allows WARS, NATURAL DISASTERS, and FAMINE couldn’t exist. That has nothing to do with free will or evil. A tri-omni god, by definition is a perfect being. A perfect being would create a perfect world, without natural disasters and hunger.”
If Con does not realize that wars and almost all famines are caused by greed and evil intentions then I do suggest he study current events more closely. He then makes the bizarre statement that HE knows what a “perfect being” would create a “perfect world”. Once again he fails to see the fact that imperfection can teach lessons that perfection never could. This was the point which I made when showing that the Supreme Being could have had a PURPOSE for the creation of evil. This fact renders his entire discussion of the Epicurean paradox as being illogical.
I likewise pointed out the illogic of using a statement such as time cannot exist prior to the universe, and then later stating that other universes have their own time or that the universe recycles. He likes to label arguments as “logical fallacies” but apparently does not understand the meaning of the “fallacies” he refers to as they apply far more to his own arguments than any of mine. Each of my arguments was backed by legitimate scientific research and reports of findings. He relies on contentions like the multiverse which which were advanced with NO science to back it up and no possibility of ever gaining such support. The vast majority of scientists who support this contention are atheists who, as I referenced, where looking for anything so that they did not have to admit that the fine-tuning which they admit is there could have come from an intelligent entity who had to be supernatural. The fervor this has created in the scientific community is on-going as one of the basis of science is to only advance as “theories” that which scientific evidence can be shown. All that can possibly be shown of the “multiverse” is conjecture. It is for this very reason that many scientists consider the notion to be pseudoscience as I have referenced. Likewise, I pointed out to Con in my Round 3 statement that merely listing a source without explaining what the sources say is not an argument at all. However he has chosen to do the exact same thing again in his attempted rebut of the comments which I made of the multiverse. In fact, some of his own references speak of the controversy surrounding the concept of the multiverse. Likewise, I presented actually scientific documentation from respected scientists to support my view. Some of his documentation however is sloppy at best. The first was an article by Miriam Kramer on Space.com. Apparently he did not read her bio at the bottom of the article. There he would have found that Kramer is NOT a scientist, but rather a staff writer whose apparently biggest scientific claims is that she once went on a zero-gravity flight and floated weightless, that she watched rockets take off, and that she hopes to someday see the Northern Lights. Her job is to report on "space entertainment".
“AUTHOR BIO Miriam Kramer: Miriam Kramer joined Space.com as a staff writer in December 2012. Since then, she has floated in weightlessness on a zero-gravity flight, felt the pull of 4-Gs in a trainer aircraft and watched rockets soar into space from Florida and Virginia. She also serves as Space.com's lead space entertainment reporter, and enjoys all aspects of space news, astronomy and commercial spaceflight.
Miriam has also presented space stories during live interviews with Fox News and other TV and radio outlets. She originally hails from Knoxville, Tennessee where she and her family would take trips to dark spots on the outsirts of town to watch meteor showers every year. She loves to travel and one day hopes to see the northern lights in person.”
Let’s revisit the entire resolution.
"I will be arguing that the Supreme Being must exist and that He is the likely the creator of the universe and thus is omnipotent (capable of doing all that He wills to do that is not self-contradicting), transcendent (not a part of the universe), immanent (involved in the affairs of the world), omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient (having all knowledge).
I will be relying primarily on logic and science.
The first round is acceptance only.
4th round is for summary only. No new arguments are to be presented."
My opponent was responsible for proving that a “Supreme Being” must exist. For this resolution to be true there can be no other option than this ‘Being’ existing. Not only did Pro have to prove this ‘Being’s’ existence, but he also had to show that ‘He’ was likely the creator of the Universe, and likely to have tri-omni abilities. As I explained earlier in this debate, to show something as LIKELY is to show that it is the most probable solution. There is no evidence that supports this resolution, and that’s a problem for Pro; a big problem. He would not only need evidence, but PROOF to make the claim that a Supreme Being MUST exist. Despite Pro’s arrogant certainty, we do not have any reason, scientifically or logically, to believe this to be the case. Pro did use an argument that we can relate to. His “There must be a strongest man, and a fastest man” argument. I do not disagree with this statement, but as I explained, these two “greatest” will be different people; therefore neither one is “The Greatest”. If Pro cannot even show that a “greatest” human must exist, he cannot properly show that a “greatest Being” must exist. Earth, as far as we know, is the only place with intelligent life, and there is no supreme human being. To clarify, just because it may be plausible to consider a Supreme Being as existing, it does not mean one actually exists.
Pro also defines the “Supreme Being” as "that which there can be nothing greater." That definition implies the greatest in every aspect, therefore having tri omni abilities. I understand that Pro doesn’t have to show that this ‘Being’ MUST have these abilities, but he has to show it is LIKELY. I logically showed that an omnipotent and omni benevolent intelligence could not create any imperfection. That would nullify that “Being” from being perfect, or “which nothing can be greater.” If we can conceive a better world, then a better world is possible. An imperfect “Supreme Being” is an oxymoron. I pointed out the number of instances of suffering with no reasonable divine justification. He claimed there could be a good reason for evil, which is illogical speculation, while ignoring my arguments that had nothing to do with ‘evil’, such as natural disasters. This shows the unlikelihood, if not impossibility of an omnipotent and omni benevolent “Supreme Being”. I showed this with logic, and in my opinion Pro’s rebuttal to it was very under whelming.
Several times during this debate I was falsely accused of ignoring Pro's arguments. I did nothing to breach the debate format, which was laid out by Pro. The 1st round was for acceptance and the 4th round for summery, where no new arguments can be made. My arguments were well within these parameters. He claimed “facts” to points that haven’t been proven to be fact. He accused me of contradictions in my argument, even though I did not make a positive claim. As I stated that’s an asinine accusation when my position is just to refute his. He used quotes as a big part of his argument, which I admittedly ignored, not because I ran out of room, but because those quotes did nothing to prove Pro’s resolution. As I stated, in a debate I don’t value opinionated quotes that aren’t based in scientific fact, especially when there are plenty of quotes that directly go against those opinions. Pro is stuck on the fact that I didn't explain the multiverse theories as if that was my only rebuttal to that argument. Him calling multiverse theories null and void is equivalent to me saying he didn't explain how his “Supreme Being” created the universe if in fact 'He' did.
Every one of Pro’s relevant arguments was debunked. I already recapped the “strongest man in the world” argument, in which proved nothing. I showed the Universe not to be fine-tuned, and had a study from Yale that conflicted with his predisposition of God argument. In terms of the “Icarus” study, Pro used such strong conviction in stating was fact. I showed that scientists are still studying this claim, and it is far from being a factual piece of evidence. I also explained that even if it was true, it would not prove a “Supreme Being”, it would just prove there is other life in the Universe. When all is said and done, Pro didn’t bring ONE scientific fact to back his claim. He did state that he was going to be using logic and SCIENCE to prove his resolution.
My opponent proposed a hypothesis at the beginning of the debate, and it remains a hypothesis at the end of the debate. The “Supreme Being must exist” claim is an unfalsifiable one that was refuted by providing alternate and more plausible explanations. Pro said he would be using science and logic to prove his resolution, and I didn’t find either convincing. It can’t be considered scientific because you can’t test it. It’s intellectually and scientifically irresponsible to make a truth claim on hearsay, or conjecture. Since testing this claim is impossible, providing any proof is just as impossible. Seeing that Pro did not meet his resolution, I strongly urge the judges to vote CON. Not only did he fail to prove the existence of a “Supreme Being”, but I provided more logical and scientifically possible alternatives to Pro’s claim. The fact that my arguments are more scientific is not subjective, and therefore neither is the logic.
I want to thank Pro one last time for this debate. I haven’t debated much on here, but this one has been my favorite to be a part of thus far.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||3|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|