There is a God who created the universe

<"However, he believes that it hasn't been in its current form for all of time. So, if nothing else was around, what caused it to change forms? A God? "> Again, the big bang and the ideas I put forth aren't mutually exclusive. They can be both be true -- actually, they both offer a very feasible and logical explanation. Just because the universe's constituency has always existed doesn't mean the universe couldn't have further developed, expanded, etc. , due to the big bang. <"I mean, what do we know? We're only human. So, any attempt of a human trying to explain something is flawed. "> My opponent is essentially rehashing an argument I already negated -- but I'll do so again. To quote myself: "Going by the premises my opponent has asserted, then he has no basis to say that a creator exists. If everything we (humans. .. clearly) conceive is flawed because we as people are flawed, then the idea of a creator has to be flawed, as well. Furthermore, my opponent says science in general is flawed -- but doesn't specifically address anything I said. I'd like him to show me the flaws in the science I've mentioned. " <"Science, ultimately, makes theories and laws based on half-truths"> No. Science makes laws based on undeniable evidence and proof. There are absolutely zero "half truths" -- but I'm curious; I'd like to see some of specific "half truths" my opponent has mentioned. As for theories, a scientific theory is much different from the general idea as to what a theory is -- a scientific theory isn't merely a conjecture or speculation; it's an explanation for something which is based on strong evidence. Neither laws nor theories are based on "half truths. " My opponent seems to have been very misinformed. <"Our universe is like a filing cabinet. Everything is in its place. We have the laws of motion and time, which keep the universe steady and never changing. Something with so much order must have an organizer. "> My opponent is yet again bringing up arguments which I negated. Me: "My point was that the idea that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove the existence of any kind of deity. That rationale is, as I've stated, a non-sequitur, which therefore means it's fallacious, which therefore means that it fails. " And the whole "order needs someone to organize it" stuff was addressed, too, when I rebutted the "painting needs a painter" argument. Instead of rebutting the arguments I've put forth, my opponent has chosen to repeat his "points," which means my arguments stand. Just for the sake of coherence and clarification, here's what I said: "the energy the universe is composed of and its forms have always existed; therefore, the universe has always existed, which consequently means it wasn't created, which clearly means there's no need for a creator, which means that a god creating the universe is entirely nonsensical. So that all means that there wasn't a "beginning" to the universe, because it has always been around. Although the idea of a creator has already been negated, this is only further helping that idea, because it's impossible to be around before something that has always existed. " If my opponent wants to win this debate, then my suggestion would be to rebut the arguments I put forth, instead of restating ones which have been negated already. <"If our universe was created by chance, then it would be too unstable to sustain life. "> . .. another non-sequitur. My opponents conclusion yet again does now follow his premise. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to make any rational retorts to the arguments I've brought to the table; he's simply rehashing arguments which I've already negated.