is it likely that a god created the universe or not

I would like to clarify what this debate should entail. .. My opponent, for many of his rebuttals, continues to refer to science. I commend that science is close to irrelevant for this debate, because no scientific research can affirm whether God is likely or not likely to exist and create the universe. Re-rebuttal"What I"m trying to say I guess is the universe may have had a beginning but it"s creation does not follow the same laws of creation as everything that we know in the physical world. "I am not familiar with this "law of creation" that you are referring to. The cosmological argument affirms that God most likely created the universe. "As you have also stated, these laws do not apply to God as well. "I do not believe that whether something has contingent existence or not is a "law". It is simple: since God is non-contingent, God would not depend on something to exist. Think of it like this:3x + 5 = 20, what is x? "x" would have to be 5, for 5 is the only applicable value for the equation. The same applies to our universe: The universe was caused by x. "x" would have to be God, for God can only possess omnipotence, transcendence and omniscience, therefore is the only applicable slot for "x". "If God created the universe is it reasonable to believe he created the laws by which the universe were governed by at that time as well? "Yes, for God created the universe. However, it is not reasonable to say that we comprehend all of the rules - science has barely scratched the surface of explaining everything, and we have no idea whether our laws are correct or not. "If so the laws we comprehend now, no longer apply. "I never once mentioned science, or the laws of physics. It is irrelevant to this discussion - it helps neither of us fulfill our burden of proofs. The cosmological argument of contingency does not scientifically induce God's existence, it logically does. You cannot scientifically induce that God does not exist either, so science is moot in this debate. "What we know of cause and effect and creation and destruction should not apply to God or the universe as these things did not exist prior to one or the other or both. "Again, science should not be involved. I don't know why Con is under the pretense that science is a relevant factor in this debate. "What may have created the universe may very well be outside outside of our scope of knowledge and we may be wasting our time applying physical laws and methodology to things that operate under completely different laws or no laws at all. "This is why the argument is positioned on the knowledge we currently operate under today. Con expresses that I need to deductively prove God's existence; I do not - the resolution reads "is it likely that a God created the universe or not? " Even if Con's contention was relevant, it would imply that we would have a definitive answer for whether our current interpretations of physics is correct or not; which we don't. Therefore, it still renders the science aspect of Con's contention moot. "The BoP is to pinpoint the creator of the universe and explain why"I disagree. Considering what the resolution is, it is logical to assume that Pro's burden of proof would be to prove that God is likely to exist and is likely to be the creator of the universe. Con's burden of proof is to prove that God likely does not exist, and likely did not create the universe. " Your explanation is that by definition God has no creator and is the most likely candidate create the universe. "Indeed. "By definition God has the power to do so but the universe but this can be an argument for anything you attribute these characteristics to. "Hmmm. It is hard to fully understand what Con's intentions are with this statement. I assume that Con meant to say that it wouldn't have to be God to create the universe; it could be created by any entity that has omnipotence, transcendence, and omniscience. However, I argue that God can be the only entity that can have the properties listed above. For, as I defined God earlier, God is "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe". Therefore, God is the only being to possess those properties. "The argument is self confirming as you would have to accept the definition of God as the creator of the universe. "Wait? Con concedes that God created the universe? Or if Con is referring to the definition of "God" that I posted earlier, it does not make Con automatically lose the debate, for it reads "a being conceived", therefore, does not make it definitively true. The definition would be nullified if Con can induce that God does not exist. "Prior to your conclusion your premises have nothing to do with God and do not necessarily have to imply God as the only non-contingent thing able to create universes. "I think what Con means to say, is that I need to further justify that if the universe is contingent, God would have to be the one to create it. Also, I fear that Con might have forgotten the definition that I provided earlier for "universe","All space-time, matter, and energy". Therefore, I am affirming that God created space-time, all matter and energy. I am under the pretense that Con may have been referring to the universe, as the observable universe, instead of the provided definition. Nonetheless, I will thoroughly elaborate on why God is the only applicable entity to have created the universe:God is omnipotent, transcendental, and omniscient. Why could only God be able to create the universe? Because only a being that is omnipotent could do such a thing. Why would God have to be omniscient? Because God would have to know how to create the universe, what to create, what creation causes another to exist etc. How would God have to be transcendental? Because, God would have to be non-physical, and non-contingent to create the universe. God is the only entity that can possess those attributes. Therefore, God could have created the universe, and nothing else could. Since I have affirmed that God inductively exists, and that God is the only being that could create the universe, with our current understanding, we can induce that God would have to create the universe. "As I affirmed earlier, it is not factual, it is theory. Even if the Big Bang did occur, it has contingent existence. .. The only point this proves is that it gives God another possible way of creating the universe" (Me)"The issue I have with this is that the existence of God by your definition is a theory there's no solid evidence to prove the existence of God by your definition nor that he is the the only entity outside of our knowledge and understanding that is capable of being outside of the universe and creating it. " (Con)Con was attempting to invalidate my inductive argument, produced from logic, on the basis that the Big Bang theory 'could' have happened. Con is trying to nullify my argument, by saying that I invalidated his argument on the basis that it was theory. Whereas, my argument is dependent on logic, which Con has not successfully refuted yet. Again, Con commits the 'moving the goalposts' fallacy, by claiming that I need to deductively prove God's existence. "It's skips any other alternative and goes straight for God as the only result and I feel that is a flawed method of reasoning. "It does not skip "any other alternative and goes straight for God" because God is the only possible being to create the universe. Aforementioned, "the universe was caused by x. "x" would have to be God, for God can only possess omnipotence, transcendence and omniscience, therefore is the only applicable slot for "x". ""I don't see how you can call it the most likely possibility without considering other possible "first causes" that may exist. "What are the intentions of "first causes". Causes of what? Causes of God? That is impossible, God is non-contingent - not dependent on anything to exist. "There has to be something to start the chain, which does not have a meaning to exist, which would have to be God. " (Me)"What is the meaning for anything outside of the universe to exist? What is the meaning for anything outside of the universe to exist? " (Con)Con implys that God has contingent existence; aforementioned, God is non-contingent. "This follows the assumption that God is the only thing outside of the universe. "Indeed. "By definition to start a chain is still a start is still a beginning and doesnt a start or beginning warrant a cause? "Indeed. Hence why the cosmological argument was created. .. "What was the meaning of the big bang to exist or any other theorized possiblities for the creation of the universe. "This contention implies that the Big Bang definitely existed. Therefore, the argument is invalid. However, if the Big Bang did occur, it would have contingent existence, and would remain invalid as the creator of "all space-time, matter and energy. ""The basis of my argument is that your argument can support a wide vareity of theorized beings that have the potential to fit nicely into your definition. Because these things can't ultimately be proven and don't require to be proven for this argument, It is safe to say the cosmological argument can support anything else you can think of as well as God. To say God is likely to exist is to say the other possibilites that anyone can conceive under similar definitions cannot exist. I would need some evidence to support that something outside of our knowledge does not exist and that God is the only things outside of our scope of knowledge that exist and is capable of creating universes. "I have proven that God can only be the possible candidate. I don't have enough character space to provide a summary. However, my argument still awaits to be refuted. I commend to Con that science is pretty much an irrelevant factor. To you, Con. :)