There is a God who created the universe

My opponent seems not very open minded. He fails to understand that by challenging his negations I can win this debate. He somehow thinks that simply because he negated them means that his negations are set in stone and cannot be disproved. Yeesh. .. Okay, let's continue: "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. " This is what I gather from what my opponent has said, at least of how I see it. (a) The energy that created the universe has always existed. (b) Since this energy has always existed, the universe has always existed, but not in its current form. (c) The changing of this energy is what caused the universe to come into its current form (The Big Bang) Going on this premises (which is what I can assume CON believes) then this energy has always existed, but one day for some unapparent reason decided to change forms (the big bang). Well, if only the energy itself was around, what caused it to change forms? The only logical answer I can think of is: A God. My opponent: "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. " Not exactly. The idea of a God is one based on faith. It is not based on things we cannot prove because faith requires no proof whatsoever. Therefore, faith isn't flawed. My opponent: "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. " Okay, here is one example. As recent as the 1700s (which is a relatively minuscule amount of time compared to the geological history of Earth) it was widely accepted in the scientific community that rotting meat/flesh produced flies. They were able to draw this assumption because if you left out meat or a corpse flies would seem to emerge from it. This is due to the fact that many species of flies lay their eggs in rotting meat/flesh and when those eggs "hatch" they emerge from the rotting meat/flesh. However, it was tested and was found that rotting meat/flesh didn't produce flies. So, the big bang theory has never been tested and neither has evolution, or even Global Warming, so how can you base arguments off of something that might not even be factual? CLOSING ARGUMENTS: Okay, peoples, I may be down but I'm not out and this is my last chance to offer evidence that supports my cases (I hope it works). Reason One: Motion There is motion in this world. Everything that is in motion was put into motion. Or, as Newton said, "An object that is not moving will not move until a net force acts upon it". Motion is the actuality of potential. The only way something can be moved from the potential to the actual is by something in the state of actuality. For example, fire is hot. Wood is potentially hot, fire makes wood potentially hot. Therefore fire (which is actually hot) makes wood (which is potentiality hot) actually hot. This world is in motion, and therefore must be put into motion by something actually (already) in motion. Something that puts something else into motion must likewise be put into motion, and that must be put into motion, and so on, and so on. This cannot go on forever because that means that there is no first mover. And without a first mover, no other mover can move, for they can only move because they were moved. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, God. Reason Two: The Efficient Clause The efficient clause is the actual action, or the causer of change. The sculptor chiseling marble, the painter painting picture, etc. Nothing is its own efficient clause. It is clear that it is not possible for something to be its own efficient clause because it would have to exist before itself (remember, my opponent hasn't proved the universe has been around forever). If there be no first cause among efficient causes, then there will be no ultimate, nor intermediate clause. Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient clause, God. Reason Three: Possibility and Necessity There are things in this world that exist and do not exist. Nothing can exist forever. Therefore if all things could not-be then it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. This is clearly absurd, since things exist now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. That is to say, there is a necessity for a being's existence. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having itself its own necessity and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in other their necessity. That would be God. Reason Four: Value There are values to certain things, such as hot, hotter, and hottest. The maximum of a given value is the cause. The maximum heat is fire. Therefore fire is the cause of hot things. Therefore there must be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection. That would be God. Reason Five: Governance of the world Unintelligent beings in the world act for an end. They act almost always in the same way to get this end, or greatest good. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore someone intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; God. Thank you.