God is a logical concept

Thank you. Now for the last round. My opponent continues to talk about the form of my argument. For example: "If you have an argument with propositions and a conclusion. Then if any one proposition is wrong then the whole argument is invalid. In fact as the following source says "A sound argument is an argument that is both valid and factually correct." But I don't see his point. Casimir Effect Con: "What is interesting about this nothing, is that in this nothing you can see particles arise and annihilate. So you are seeing something coming from nothing, please see reference 1 from round 2 if you are in doubt about this." The references just prove my case. My opponent obviously can't grasp that pure nothingness cannot include particles, and though it is quite insuperable to fathom, it is vital to have the idea of straight-out nothing in your head as you try to figure this out. The last paragraph in his link he gave went like this: 'Einstein's theory of gravitation implies that this energy must produce an infinite gravitational curvature of spacetime--something we most definitely do not observe. The resolution of this problem is still an open research question.' The site Con gave proof that science cannot explain the origin of this universe and the way everything came to be! This is fascinating and amazing, because the only alternative for the creation of this universe, is a legit Creator, a.k.a. God. IAAA can't prove anything for his side of the argument. Why? Because, as he said before, it is impossible to observe nothingness since we have something in existence at all times. Particles are something, is it not? So my opponent's video is invalid. His entire argument the past round has been invalid, due to the fact that he based it on an assumption that NOTHING really IS SOMETHING (particles). Why? At 2:20 in the video, it says that energy is what creates the particles. But this straight out contradicts Con's definition of 'nothingness,' which is: 'the quantum vacuum otherwise called as zero point energy.' Of course, atheists have to have some sort of explanation for our existence, so they create the Big Bang concept and, controversially, the evolution hypothesis. Science seems to out do religion--or so they say. Point is, all the arguments, debates, and thoughts about abiogenesis and the origin of this universe COMES BACK TO THE CONCEPT OF GOD. A Creator God is the only logical concept out there, and my opponent has proved that throughout this debate itself. Con: "I hope now my opponent is beginning to see why I say they need to prove nothing. I have shown the only real concept of nothing to be true, to counter my argument you need to disprove this and show the that your nothing is real." Well, because of our topic of logic/common sense, I used This link [1] tries to explain the Big Bang. But the mistake it makes, is it does not explain what nothingness is. There is a giant, obvious hole in the explanation because it doesn't say where those particles, where the energy, where the air, where any of that even came from before going on to say how those particles, energy, etc. became Studies show that there was a beginning to the universe; that something started it (or from your perspective something just happened). [2] You can't deny that there must have been a beginning, you can't defy the fact that there was once an utter place of nothing (physical). Soooo... Which is more logical: Faith in Creator God? Or blind faith that everything came from nothing? John Lennox once said: 'Faith is not a leap in the dark; it's the exact opposite. It's a commitment based on evidence...and it is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding discussion.' [3]] Con said: "Then when you observe this tube of nothingness, what you will see is these metal plates moving together. You are literally observing something coming from nothing!" That's the thing, in nothingness there will BE no metal plates or movement! Besides, as I said previously, you cannot prove this because the nothing could do ANYTHING, because it is impossible (at this time) to create an environment of nothing. My resolution has been that the Creator in God is a metaphysical necessity. [4] Since my opponent does not believe I proved my initial premise, I will further explore possibility that God is not real. Logic tells me that without God we can't make sense of the world, without God we have no foundation for epistemology, no foundation for science and none for ethics. Apart from God you can know nothing and that is why it's the only reasonable, or logical, world view. The way we view the world is the most productive, because it is telling you that we are not stardust but that we are special, beautiful creatures made in the image of God; the way we view the world is the most constructive because of morality produced; our world view is the most logical and reasonable because it explains free will, (im)morality, explains the meaning of life, and works with what science brings about. Some atheists might mock the Bible, saying 'how convenient it is for a book to tell you not to question what it says.' I can imagine my opponent thinking up all the clich"s in Christianity and others, and then explaining why they are illogical and--sorry for a lack of words--a stupid concept altogether. But the Bible actually says this: "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." Why would a religion's book say that? 1st Peter 3:15 [5] is proof for the validity of Christianity in general because the Bible tells us that the world (people and their culture) will do everything the opposite as Christian and it will be difficult to stay on the right path with God. The main book that is supposed to promote it's so-called religion, tells the followers the truth: that the Christian journey will NOT be easy. Why? Because the Book IS the truth. It holds some of the most astounding philosophies and stories ever known. From the 6 days of creation [6] to the end times prophesies [7], God reveals the beauty of life to us through His Word [8]. Con says: "As such why do I need to answer these questions when your argument to get to these questions is flawed. In fact I think these questions could make some good debate questions." Why are you debating this if you won't accept the truth? The truth is that there are other world views from yours. The truth is that NOT ALL science proves your world view. The truth is that you do not know why, where, how, when, what or who started the universe, and you do know that your view on it doesn't make sense. The questions of the universe are the 4 or 5Ws, and the answers always have "GOD" results. See link [6] and try to disprove Creationism. But then I must ask, why do you care what others believe if what you believe is just a cause of randomness from the fizzing of your brain, that you are nothing more than stardust, that you are just matter and you will die away because of nature at any time? I have yet to find a reason that the concept for the Christian Creator is unnecessary, or unreasonable, or illogical. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://www.nsf.gov... [2] http://gizmodo.com... [3] http://www.thepoachedegg.net... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.biblegateway.com... [6] [7] http://www.gotquestions.org... [8]