This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.

Congratulations on the graduation. And thank you for the debate. It was certainly entertaining. The reliance on classical arguments for theism was refreshing. -- It's possible that you could inherit a million dollars, however this doesn't imply that since it is possible it must be a reality in some possible universe. That doesn't follow. There is no breech in logic that prevents the best jelly doughnut from existing by the same logic as the best creator being. The underlying argument as constructed simply says that if it's better to have existence than non-existance then it must exist. One does not need to have a hypothetical thing be the set of the best of everything, but rather be better in the aspect of existence. As even the best hypothetical jelly doughnut must be worse than the worst actual jelly doughnut, it must be the case that existence makes a jelly doughnut better. It must be the case that the best jelly doughnut imaginable must then also be a jelly doughnut that exists by this same logic. -- It doesn't need to be the best of everything, just anything where the best such things would be *improved* by existence. My opponent is therefore improperly applying some post hoc special pleading to say that this logic can only possibly apply to God. If this were the case, then shouldn't we now understand why it applies to one and not the other. Why must the jelly doughnut be all knowing? That doesn't make it a better jelly doughnut (I daresay it makes it worse). The only point of interest for us therefore is whether a jelly doughnut that exists is better than one that doesn't. It must therefore be the case that the logic underlying the argument is faulty. This objection is typically called Gaunilo's island. http://en.wikipedia.org... The special pleading of my opponent (and Paul Glenn) doesn't logically change anything about the argument. Claiming that because jelly doughnuts are not omnimax is ignoring the thrust of the argument: things are better when they exist. So despite the limitation of being a jelly doughnut, it's still improved by existence and thus exists (but it doesn't). In fact, if we want to improve any concept by such logic we could apply existence as a property to said object to the point of absurdity. How could my design for a super-awesome mechsuit be improved? Why, it could be an actual mechsuit already made! *POOF!* Certainly since an already built mechsuit is better than a design, it's an improvement. And since it now exists, it now exists. -- The problem in reality is that the leap between the conceptual and the material. It doesn't matter how good you imagine something, it will never be real. Concepts don't become reality by wordplay. Without realizing this difference there is nothing logically impeding these arguments and we should be inundated with improved by existence things constantly. -- >>This is true but those things had to exist before they could randomly act such. Nope. When we smash together particle in particle smasher the particles that appear, weren't there before. That's why the speed at which they are smashed matters so much. The faster you smash them, the more matter and higher energy particles can be produced. >>...if we can predict something has or will happen then there has to be a pattern which signifies a cause. We can't. It's absolutely impossible to predict exactly when a radioactive particle will decay. There are some random number generators which use this as part of a seeding routine by actually picking up the decay of such particles to make an actual random number generator rather than a pseudorandom number generator. This is also why the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment has a can of poison gas triggered such a decay. In a quantum sense it can be said to have decayed and has yet to decay (and thus the cat can be said to be dead and not be dead) at the same time. There's no pattern, and we can't predict it. We can only look and see if it happened or not (though doing so might change the result). >>This does not follow for if their was no cause then we could also say how all the matter and energy came to be. Causelessly ofcourse! The same way particles come to be in an particle accelerator or from photons. You are wrongly intertwining the ideas of existence and cause. Cause doesn't apply universally. >>It was all ways there. Unless the universe is zero sum. In that case the "It" refers to nothing. 1 + (-1) = 0. The total amount of energy in the universe would be zero from big bang to heat death. It would seem to exist only because it was kept apart. >>This does not follow because as I have already pointed out there must be a beginning to it. Begin to exist, sure. Caused, no. >>Now God is uncaused but he neither has to follow nor does he follow the rules of science. Then your entire argument crumbles. If uncaused things can exist, then the universe could simply be uncaused. As the start of the universe doesn't and can't exist within the universe, then there is no reason to expect that the start need to follow the rules of science. In fact, there's no indication at all of what the physics of the universe were prior to Planck time. >>You may not know were the energy and the matter of the universe came from but I have a perfectly logical answer for it. No. You have a red herring of an answer, and special pleading. It follows the same general outline as many theist arguments. 1) There is a problem, Q. 2) For various reasons Q is a serious problem. 3) God solves Q. 4) The same problem applies to God. 5) God is immune to problem Q. It's outsourcing the problem without solving it, and special pleading as to why the problem doesn't apply now. >>As a Creator he need not come from anywhere he has always been. Then couldn't the universe always have existed. Thus causing your argument to crumble. If the end of another universe caused the start of this one and it's simply been cycling, then by your logic the universe doesn't need any cause to explain it. Even if objections are able to be raised to this, then those same objections can be raised to your statement about God. >>No He didn't have to come from something or somewhere since he is outside the laws of science he just is. Special pleading. And prior to Planck time the entire universe would not be part of the universe and there would be no laws of physics. So if these claims render your claim valid, they apply much more pressingly to the universe itself. >>But that "any origin" is what I call God and you call Unknown. This is equivocation. You're in effect calling what could simply be wave collapse, God. The topic says creator which implies agency. If something did start the universe, say the evaporation of a black hole in another universe (this is scientifically absurd but an example), then you can't call that black hole God. It isn't a "creator". >>I congratulate my opponent on his knowledge of modern science and on his ability to debate as well as exploit my mistakes. Thank you. I'm quite impressed with modern cosmology, because not only does it work out scientifically with known physics but it also seems to be providing a large number of philosophical solutions. Causeless things do occur and thus the argument of first cause is simply wrong. Matter and energy may not be destroyed but they may be canceled out by negative energies of spacetime and dark energy (due to the necessity of arguments, they needn't even be true, just possible). The proposition that being outside the universe exempts one from the laws of physics is useful because any start of the universe could not exist within time as time is part of the universe. These insights not only work out within physics, but they negate some very classical theological arguments heretofore used. Thank you for the debate. Thank you for reading.