Resolution: A creator of the universe exists.

As I said before I will be defending two basic contentions:1.There are good reasons to think God exists.2.There are no good reasons to think God doesn't exist.I will first attack my opponents case then proceed to defend my own.My opponent's makeshift Problem of Evil.My opponent seems to think that the Problem of Evil is a attack on a creator, but(even though I will refute this) it has no bearing on this case, whether the Creator is bad or good is irrelevant in this debate. The problem of evil only is applicable if we are talking about a Judeo-Christian god but the resolution only says creator therefore it is irrelevant. Furthermore, even if it were applicable, because of human cognitive limitations, there is no sound inductive argument that can enable one to move from the premise that there are states of affairs that, taking into account only what we know, it would be morally very wrong for an omnipotent and omniscient person to allow to exist, to the conclusion that there are states of affairs such that it is likely that, all things considered, it would be morally very wrong for an omnipotent and omniscient person to allow those states of affairs to exist. A second way of attempting to show that the argument from evil does not even get started is by appealing to the proposition that there is no best of all possible worlds. Here the basic idea is that if for every possible world, however good, there is a better one, then the fact that this world could be improved upon does not give one any reason for concluding that, if there is an omnipotent and omniscient being, that being cannot be morally perfect.[1]Defence of the KCA:My opponent simply attacks premise one but as Timothy Hsiao notes in a debate of his: "he confuses epistemic indeterminacy with ontological indeterminacy. That science isn't able to furnish a clear causal scenario does not mean that the event in question is uncaused. Indeed, it is likely that this inability is merely epistemic. If the causal principle really is false, then why does causal indeterminacy (Understood in an ontological sense) only happen at the quantum level? There should be no reason not to suppose that it can also be true on a macroscopic level. It is thus more likely that there is indeed a cause, but our inability to detect it is only an epistemic limitation that does not have any ontological implications."[2]He concedes premise 2 therefore if he cannot raise further objections then the KCA is unblemished. But lets assume that the objection is correct, if it is correct than "We can simply recast the argument in inductive form, arguing that the conclusion has a higher probability than its negation."[2]Attack on Hilbert's Hotel:Cross apply from defence of the KCA.Thomistic Cosmological Argument:My opponent attacks this but really this is not the first mover argument just a atypical thomistic argument so even though I needn't defend it since I still have the first mover argument standing I will anyway.1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.2. The existence of the universe is thus either:a. unintelligible orb. has an explanation3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.5. There are only three kinds of explanations:a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.[3]Thomistic First Mover and Other arguments made under this label:My opponent has dropped the three arguments above the simplistic argument. If follows logically that he agrees with them or didn't notice. I would ask my opponent to answer the arguments or concede them.I have fulfilled my BOP, and I don't believe that either of my contentions are touched. Thank you and Vote Pro. [1]http://plato.stanford.edu...[2]Timothy Hsiao http://www.debate.org......[3]http://www.saintaquinas.com......;