The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists

The universe needs a creator = The universe needs a cause According to Con's definition, a creator is a person or thing that creates. If we build on that and accept an appropriate definition of "creates" is "to cause to begin or come into being," then I propose an acceptable synonym for "creator" is "cause." Therefore, throughout this debate whenever I reference the universe having a "creator," I simply mean the universe had a "cause." I just want to clarify this in order to remove the emotional charge often carried by the term "creator." For the purposes of this debate, I am arguing that the universe needs a cause. Now, for the second part - "therefore God exists." Con did not define "God." But suffice it to say that if something could exist outside of space, time, matter, and the natural order (i.e., super-natural), that thing would be a strong candidate for "God." So, here is a more precise version of my premise: The universe needs a cause, and that cause is an agent outside of space, time, matter, and the natural order (aka, God). Finally, BoP - it is impossible to prove whether God exists or how the universe began - we cannot observe or measure such claims. Neither of us can fulfill a pure BoP. Therefore, I suggest the debate operate on a preponderance of the evidence, or, what is most likely to be true given the evidence. == Argument == To win this debate, my opponent must demonstrate that the universe exists without cause. Con must literally show that the universe came from nothing - no creator, no cause, no beginning. Con only has 3 options - either the universe created itself (no cause), the universe came from nothing (no creator), or the universe is eternal (no beginning). If there is another option I am missing, I welcome Con to present it. Unfortunately, these options are all impossible, and I will explain why for the following reasons: 1) Something cannot create itself. This is self-evident, because something cannot create itself if it already existed in the first place. 2) Nothing cannot create something. Let's be clear on what we mean by "nothing." It means quite literally "no-thing." No matter, no energy, no space, no natural laws, no properties. Therefore, logic and all scientific observation confirms that nothing cannot create something, because out of nothing, nothing comes. 3: The universe had a finite beginning. Not only does scientific observation overwhelmingly confirm this, but it would be logically impossible for us to exist in a past eternal universe - if an infinite series of events must transpire before arriving at the present moment, then we would never get to this present moment because it is impossible to complete an infinite series of events. This is important because, if true, it means that no space, time, or matter existed prior to the birth of the universe. Therefore, our "cause" is necessarily beyond space, time, matter, etc... With these premises, the argument proceeds as follows: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause which is necessarily spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and uncaused I welcome Con's rebuttals. No rush - I won't be able to respond until Monday.