God is Real

As intense and mind exercising as it is, I am enjoying every second of this debate against a worthy opponent. Now for my rebuttal. ContingencyDefinition: Occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on. Con states that premise "B" of contingency is not proven nor is it prima facie. I object to both of these statements. Premise B is proven due to the definition of Contingent. It also is prima facie. Definition- Prima Facie: denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. My proposition is that a creator exists, I offered evidence that there must be one thing/entity/being that was incontingent for there to be contingent things, if this is not rebutted, then Con can not prove his case. This is logical, we know that the Universe is incontingent due to the Big Bang Theory. Definition- Theory: system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. The Big Bang Theory is accepted as a solid theory of the Universe beginning, therefore the Universe is contingent. Therefore, it is prima facie because if Con fails to rebut it and just brushes this point off then he cannot defeat my argument of Contingency. Design I believe Con misses the point on this one completely, I understand why Con got the wrong idea. The argument is not as much intelligent design as it is mindless vs mind. The point of this argument is that if some things have a mind while others do not, it is logical to say that the minded created the mindless. Cosmologicalun·in·tel·li·gi·ble/ˌəninˈteləjəbəl/Adjective: Impossible to understandIt is the nature of rationality to search for explanations wherever they are. So it would be irrational for someone to say that the Universe has no explanation. The intelligibility of the existence of God is currently being presented by me with my arguments, Con. It is inteligible because the explanation of the Universe cannot be completely scientific due to the fact that so little is known about the singularity that caused the Big Bang Theory. But if the universe is just all natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial natural conditions or laws outside it. Therefore, there can be no scientific explanation for the existence of the universe. It can't be essential due to the fact that if The Big Bang Theory happened slightly differently, we would not exist, therefore the Universe isn't necessary. Since rationality demands an explanation, it has to be one of the three explanations, since scientific and essential do not work, personal would give an intelligible reason to believe in God. Creation I understand where Con is coming from on this one, but I do not believe this is a good comparison, here's why. Lightning bolts come from clouds which we can see with our eyes easily. We are talking about the existence before, well, existence. When did time begin? How did the Universe get made? What was before the Universe? As you can see, lightning bolts are not a good comparison t the creation of all of existence. Con is making a mountain out of a mole hill in this argument. First MoverIt is hard for me to refute this because I am not sure where Con is going with this argument. Con, are you trying to go into the argument of quantum fluctuations? Do you want to go there? It will make this debate even more complicate than it already is. Also, with your last sentence, con, are you trying to say the Universe created itself? Please be clearer. ChallengeCon, I will answer your challenge in the next round because first I have a question about it. Would you mind elaborating a little more on this challenge? Have I not explained the logic behind belief in God? ( I am not resigning from this challenge btw. ) Thanks for your time.