The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists

Debate clarifications: a. First if all, I would like to apologise for not elaborating more on the term "Creator". The definitions I gave were the following: 1. a person or thing that creates. 2. the Creator, God. By Dictionary.com My opponent stated that "Creator" equals "cause". Indeed, sometimes "Creator" may have that meaning, but that is so in specific cases. Here are the most common synonyms of "Creator": Dictionary.com [1] Main Entry: creator Part of Speech: noun Definition: inventor; God Synonyms: architect, author, begetter, brain, deity, designer, founder, framer, generator, initiator, maker, originator, prime mover, producer, sire Antonyms: destroyer, destructor WordReference English Thesaurus " 2017 [2] creator Sense: n. (in general) inventor, producer, originator, author, designer, writer, artist, painter, draughtsman, draftsman, draughtswoman, draftswoman, draughtsperson, draftsperson, architect, artiste, performer, begetter, brains (slang), constructor, builder, craftsman, craftswoman, craftsperson, artisan, engineer, engenderer, instigator, fashion designer, craftsman, mastermind, maker, manufacturer, smith creator Sense: n. (religious) First Cause, Deity, Maker, God, God Almighty, Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, Father, Our Father, Lord, Lord Our God, All-Powerful, King of Kings, divinity As seen here, the word "cause" cannot be considered an alternative to "creator", except when in a religious sense. Meaning, "cause" will be accepted as a synonym to "creator" if in a religious frame, thus implying a higher or intelligent supernatural entity. b. When talking about the burden of proof being shared, I mean that it is placed on neither Pro nor Con. Perhaps I did not make it clear enough. I apologise for that. Arguments: I would to begin with mentioning that the big bang is proven to have happened. I will use certain points I have made in another debate, namely "Religion is a delusion". The evidence is listed below: [3] i. A good telescope, under favorable circumstances, should be able to observe foreign galaxies that have a faint reddish hue. That happens because of the Doppler - or redshift, in this case - phenomenon, which tells us, according to the studies of wave mechanics, that the wavelength of a wave increases as the wave source moves away from the observer, and decreases, as it gets closer to him. The above occur in light waves too, making it more red as the wavelenght increases (redshift) and more blue as it decreases (blueshift). This is so because the red and blue colours correspond to the highest and lowest wavelength of a light wave in the visible spectrum of light. Knowing this, one can deduce that all the galaxies are moving away from the observers - us - with an astounding speed, considering that the speed of light is 300.000klm/sec. That may lead to the conclusion that our galaxy is the centre of the universe. But to quote Hubble: ...if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the Universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the Universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the Universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions." The following is Hubble's law: 1. Objects observed in deep space (extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more) are found to have a Doppler shift interpretable as relative velocity away from Earth 2. This Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away. The logical conclusion that scientists drew out of this is, of course, the expansion of the universe, which we ascribe to the big bang. ii. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (or CMBR/CMB) is an intense radiation detected throughout the whole universe, considered to be the most direct evidence for the big bang, as it is radiation that was initially produced by it. iii. Last but not least, there are the accurate predictions made by the big bang theory concerning the detected quantities of the funfamental elements (Hydrogen, Helium, Deuterium, Lithium e.t.c.) in the observable universe. I cited an image from Lawrence Krauss' book "A universe from nothing" in order to present my argument better. [4] My opponent made the following statements: "1) Something cannot create itself. This is self-evident, because something cannot create itself if it already existed in the first place. 2) Nothing cannot create something. Let's be clear on what we mean by "nothing." It means quite literally "no-thing." No matter, no energy, no space, no natural laws, no properties. Therefore, logic and all scientific observation confirms that nothing cannot create something, because out of nothing, nothing comes. 3: The universe had a finite beginning. Not only does scientific observation overwhelmingly confirm this, but it would be logically impossible for us to exist in a past eternal universe - if an infinite series of events must transpire before arriving at the present moment, then we would never get to this present moment because it is impossible to complete an infinite series of events. This is important because, if true, it means that no space, time, or matter existed prior to the birth of the universe. Therefore, our "cause" is necessarily beyond space, time, matter, etc..." The third point is the one I disagree with. No scientist ever claimed that, the universe had a finite beginning based on evidence or observation. If Pro, by any chance, refers to the big bang, they are totally wrong, for the latter explains the expansion of our universe, as all matter was initially concentrated in one little area, but not its origin. I contend that the universe is not finite, hence having no beginning. I shall justify my claim by mentioning that time itself appears to be a property of the universe (reference to relativity) [5], this proposing the possibility that time has no effect, or rather does not exist when talking about the universe as a whole. In this way, the universe can be described as "infinite", as it would have no finite beginning in the frame of time, for, as shown above, the aforementioned is subjective. My opponent also argues that, if our universe is infinite, we could not exist in a specific point of time in it, because an infinite series of events would have passed before us. I believe they view the matter from a false perspective. With a timeless, as proven before, universe, one could simplify the topic by saying that everything happens simultaneously in that universe. Time poses no problem here. I would describe it as an infinite folder (infinite universe) containing reports of an infinite number of events (time). The point in which we exist is merely some of those papers. I have to admit that I can hardly comprehend all the above, since the mystery known as "infinite" is involved, let alone elaborate on it. If any logical mistakes are made, I would appreciate it if Pro mentioned them. Sources: [1] Dictionary.com thesaurus, "Creator" http://www.thesaurus.com... [2] WordReference mobile application thesaurus, "Creator" [3] Big bang, elaboration and evidence https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [4] Element analogy http://bit.ly... [5] a. Relativity Relativity experiments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Constancy of the speed of light experiments: https://journals.aps.org... https://journals.aps.org... b. Constancy of the speed of light, supporting relativity Constancy of the speed of light articles: https://www.google.gr... (download) http://www.emc2-explained.info...