A creator exists

My opponent stated that it is his belief that a creator cannot be proved and, still, my opponent debates in favor of a creator. My opponent has further argued that this was intentional on the part of said creator which cannot be proved. The reason for this is, admittedly (by my opponent), purely speculative, and "... will not mention it." First, the very fact that a reason is not stated precludes all debate about my opponents beliefs. This, fundamentally, leaves us with something along the lines of, "You'll just have to take my word for it." I'm sorry, but no. Reasonable people don't take anyone's "word for it." If there is to be a debate, it must be according to reason and logic. Given that my opponent has already commented that logic (in and of itself, apparently) is flawed, on what basis is ANY debate to take place? Unnamed speculations? Such a debate would not only be pointless and fruitless, but completely without merit and doomed to failure. As for my opponent's "grammatical correction," it seems my opponent has taken a portion of one sentence and made what would be a correction, had my opponents understanding of the statement not been incorrect: Humans once operated on the assumption that there was a cause for EVERYTHING, though this was not explicitly stated. Had my opponent continued reading and applied the subsequent statements, he would have understood that the implication, by early man, was that such a cause was assumed to be an entity. And entity of volition and intent. We know, today, that this is not the case, and it is precisely the logic and reason with which humans are gifted by evolution which allowed us to arrive at a place where even our young are aware that volcanoes do not erupt because there are angry gods inside of them, and that there is no god sitting on Mount Olympus, hurling lightning bolts because he is having a temper tantrum. Thus, yes, "Humans operate under the assumption that there IS a cause for everything." However, we no longer attach a personage to the causes for what we understand to be natural events, following the laws of physics. This is precisely what allows our meteorologists to give fellow humans early warning of impending disaster due to tornadoes, hurricanes, flash floods, etc. This is precisely what allows our seismologists to use ULF waves to predict earthquakes, and save human lives. This is precisely what allows air travel by thousands of flights, around the globe, weekly. All of these are based on knowledge accumulated over centuries, extrapolated by the use of reason and logic, which my opponent claims are flawed. I assumed my readers would have been able to extrapolate that from context. I will be more clear about these things, in the future. This brings us one more step toward my opponent's "creator," to which only reference and description have been made. Here is what I understand, so far: Deity's Identity: "TRUTH" Deity's Attributes: eternal sentient omnipotent omniscient My opponent, in effect, is attempting to rehash the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and attribute it to "TRUTH." Further, that this particular ("creator") entity has intentionally created this universe in such a manner as to make itself unprovable. My opponent then goes on to state that nobody can disprove that this entity is behind evaporation. That, if evaporation follows the laws of nature, we must ask "WHO created those rules," without ever having established that it was indeed a "who," to the exclusion of all other possibilities. In order to accept the argument of my opponent's admitted speculation, we must dismiss the notion that circumstances and conditions of a young universe were not a natural event. On my opponent's speculation, we are asked to return to the early developmental days of humans, and ASSUME that the CAUSE for EVERYTHING was a personage. Thus far, my opponent's strongest argument is "you can't PROVE I'm wrong." This is not a compelling argument. No evidence has been put forth that "TRUTH" even exists (other than an inability to disprove an implied existence). No mention of any correlation between this "TRUTH" and the laws of nature (other than an inability to disprove an implied correlation). Nothing has been produced to indicate that this "TRUTH" created this universe (other than an inability to disprove an implied creation). I must state, at this point, that this "TRUTH" is beginning to smell a great deal like the Abrahamic gods, with all the same inferences, and all the same attributes. The final point my opponent attempted was based on a very fragile presumption: "The universe exists where there was nothing before." The fact of the matter is that humans have absolutely NO idea what existed prior to the universe we are able to observe. The BBT does posit that it began from a singularity (which is not "nothing"). Our leading scientists have, after the fashion of generations before them, continued to build upon the knowledge and discoveries of those that have come before them. The scientific community continues to (quite literally) reach for the stars, in an attempt to discover more, learn more, know more. The simple truth of the matter is that I am currently simply marking time, waiting for my opponent to post something substantive. I am unable and unwilling to rebut "speculation" and "why not" arguments. In the most fundamental terms, I must answer my opponent's "Why not a creator?" I must answer with a very simple sentence: Because there is nothing to indicate that there even IS a creator. I, personally, am quite capable of saying, "I don't know." I don't need to know how the universe came into being, in order to live happily. I don't need to have a creator, in order to exist. I don't have the ancient and ignorant need to attribute a personage to the fact that I am here, living, breathing, thinking, wondering, speculating, dreaming, positing, hypothesizing, and concluding. I am an human being that is. If my opponent feels the need to attribute his existence to a creator, then by all means, this is my opponent's right. However, my opponent has taken the pro position in a debate over the existence of a creator. It is his responsibility to prove that this creator exists, not mine to prove that it doesn't. Logic is not my god; I have no god. Reason is my guide, in this life, and it has served me well, so far. If my opponent's entire case rests upon "You can't prove otherwise," then we are already at an impasse, and my opponent has failed to prove his case for the existence of a creator.