A creator exists

Sifting through all of the inapplicable tangents, the veiled accusations, and the ad hominem effluvia, I was not able to discern a single valid argument, and just a handful of valid statements. From the beginning: Pro: "Evidence is not proof? Lol what dictionary do you own? The disney version?" No, Evidence is NOT proof. SUFFICIENT evidence can constitute a conclusion that is seemingly impossible to contradict. The concept of "proof," however, implies that the conclusion is incontrovertible. Evidence, by itself, can be misleading and, as a result, misinterpreted. In essence, no. The two words are not interchangeable; Pro's ad hominem notwithstanding. Next, my opponent moves on to a veiled accusation: "And need I remind you of your promise? I removed the automatic forfeiture clause because you promised not to lie." And I have kept that promise. And Pro's misinterpretation (or perhaps reading comprehension challenges?): "The first quote on your profile states that that you are free because you are morally responsible for your actions. A total contradiction I might add." No, the first quote on my profile states that ROBERT HEINLEIN is free because ROBERT HEINLEIN is morally responsible for HIS actions. This is a quote, not a statement of my own. I happen to agree with the principle behind it, but that is not a contradiction, by any stretch of even the most convoluted imagination. Next, we have Pro's two part, unfounded assertion that I find to be completely incorrect: "Because morality implies a belief in God, but a belief in God implies predestination." No, morality does NOT imply a belief in a deity. It implies an ethical standard. Neither does a belief in a deity imply predestination. If my opponent is going to make blind, unconditional and unfounded assertions without any support, then any pretense that this is a debate goes right out the window. Next, Pro states: "And what that quote tells me is you believe you have free will, and you believe in God." First, my opponent misinterprets my statements, and uses quotes to imply falsehood, on my part. Next, he is (once again) attributing beliefs and positions to me that both are incorrect and that he is in no position to assert. I have free volition, not free will. Further, I fully explained this in my previous entry. Pro seems to have either missed this, or ignored it, for the purposes of making his ad hominem post easier on himself. Pro's presumptuous conclusion: "It would seem that you do believe in God but are ashamed to admit it." I am not ashamed of any of my beliefs, and a deity is not among them. Several rambling senteces later, Pro attempts to create an apparent contradiction between my statement ("one is fully capable of choosing to act upon said thought, if one chooses to act on it, AT ALL") to imply that I posit predestination to be impossible. This is an incorrect interpretation ( I keep warning Pro not to put words in my mouth, to no avail...) of the statement. Nothing about that statement makes anything an impossibility. If my volitional choices were predestined by some vast entity beyond human comprehension, I would have no way of knowing it, let alone doing anything about it. The statement about freedom of volition is mutually exclusive with the possibility/impossibility of predestination. The two THOUGHTS are mutually exclusive, and I have STILL not stated a position on predestination. While predestination would ONLY be possible outside of my own knowledge, I cannot state whether it is possible or impossible. I don't believe in it, but my belief is not concrete proof of the veracity. The next paragraph is a revisiting of Pro's attempt at personification of "logic" and science, along with more blind assertions of the "...creation of the big bang." The entire paragraph is a rehash that has already been refuted, and I will not waste additional words beyond pointing out that the entire paragraph is an incoherent hodgepodge of assertions and claims devoid of meaning or accuracy, and replete with misconceptions. In Pro's final paragraph, we finally arrive at the one accurate point in the entire diatribe of incoherent ramblings: "On a side note, I see a lot of debate about the definition of atheism. One claims,"I believe no God exists." And the other claims."I do not believe a God exists." To the layman it may seem like the same thing, but they are two different meanings. " Yes, they are two different statements; one is a dismissal of the beliefs of others, the other is a statement of belief by the speaker. Good job, to Pro... Finally an accurate statement and assessment. Unfortunately, Pro follows up a perfectly good assessment with yet another diatribe commentary, way out in left field. Pro states: "The second bunch, who i call Holes, are making a psychological statement. They believe anyone who believes in God is dillusional." First, there is NO implication in the statement "I do not believe a god exists," that labels the contrary belief as "delusional" (not "dillusional"). Even the "names" that Pro gives each group seems to imply a very childish view of others' beliefs. The remaining diatribe goes on to "slam" the beliefs that he is incapable of refuting, and offers NOTHING in support of his own delusional and quite unorthodox assertions about his god, "TRUTH." Throughout the entirety of this "debate," I have been waiting for Pro to produce just ONE cogent argument in favor of a creator. None has been forthcoming. I have waited for some form of valid argumentation. None has been forthcoming. Aside from a list of unsupported claims, assertions, and misstatements, Pro has used a great many words to say a whole lot of nothing. No evidence has been presented, and we haven't even seen a clear definition of what "TRUTH" actually might be. Unfortunately, this entire debate has amounted to a great deal of posturing on the part of my opponent, and nothing of any real relevance or substance. My opponent has made several condescending statements to others, in the comments section, belittling the views and conclusions of others. Within the debate, itself, he admits to being uneducated. While there is, indeed, a difference between education and intellect, I have seen evidence of NEITHER, in this debate, forthcoming from the Pro position. Once again, I must state that the measure proposing that "TRUTH" created the universe has never even reached the stage of hypothesis. The assertion that there is a creator, from my opponent, amounts to "I can't see any other alternative, can you?" This, as though his inability to conceive of an alternative automatically constitutes the validation of an as yet unsubstantiated creation or creator, to the exclusion of any other possibility. I am actually quite sorry that I agreed to this waste of time and bandwidth, given that the "debate" has produced a lot of words, and nothing else. In closing I will state, directly to Pro: Your "TRUTH" has been effectively falsified.