This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.

Sorry that it took so long to reply my grandmother's birthday was yesterday and I have been preparing for my graduation tomorrow. I would love to first congratulate my opponent on his very good understanding of modern science but must say that his understanding of me is not as exact. I apologize for this and wish that on a later date I might be a bit better at making myself clear. The thing that my opponent does not seam to readily understand is that we're not talking about a impossible being (for everything is possible it is possible that I could inherit 1 million dollars however unlikely) this however does not seem to be his biggest issue. His biggest issue seems to be that if something is the best of something then it will exist. However this is only true up into a point, I concede. On the other hand we are not talking about something that is best in something but is best in EVERYTHING and in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY. Everything and every possible way includes existence over non existence. So this principle can be applied to only one thing and that is a Maximally Excellent Being. Or for the sake of time God. The truth behind what my opponent tells you is that things can happen randomly or seemingly (at least at the moment) without cause. This is true but those things had to exist before they could randomly act such. Secondly I hate to disappoint but my opponent fails to realize is that if we can predict something has or will happen then there has to be a pattern which signifies a cause. My opponent stated "The universe cannot have a cause. The universe is the start of space and time, and thus cannot have a time prior to it's existence and thus, cannot have a cause." This does not follow for if their was no cause then we could also say how all the matter and energy came to be. It was all ways there. This does not follow because as I have already pointed out there must be a beginning to it. Now God is uncaused but he neither has to follow nor does he follow the rules of science. The reason being that he created them (that is the rules of science and therefore has the power to bend or even break them). I did not state "now philosophically if there is a possibility of something (Conceptual possibility) then it must exist (Material existence) in some possible universe." I did state "if there is a possibility of something then it must exist in some possible universe." But my opponent miss interprets me. I would state "if there is a possibility of something (Conceptual possibility) then it must exist (Conceptual existence) in some possible universe." And this is one of the premises of my argument. This a miss interpretation on my part. "To demonstrate this I showed the same example with a Jelly Doughnut. My opponent argued that it needs to be omnipotent to work. However, this isn't a requirement of the argument. It must only be the case that an existing jelly doughnut is better than a conceptual one. However, I should now have an omnipotent jelly doughnut." This however should be a Maximally Excellent Jelly Doughnut not omnipotent. I messed up. Sorry it was five o'clock in the morning when I made that argument. However If your Maximally Excellent Jelly Doughnut exists then he is the same as my God because he MUST BE BEST IN EVERYTHING AND IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY (this of course includes existence.) I am not trying to "magic God(s) into existence with wordplay". I am stating that by his very nature that he must exists. You may not know were the energy and the matter of the universe came from but I have a perfectly logical answer for it. God. My God does not need a god because he is outside of the laws of science as I have already pointed out. Anything that is outside the laws of known science is what I would call a Creator/s this would include a God. As a Creator he need not come from anywhere he has always been. Simply stated: Where did God come from? He didn't. Well then there is no God? No He didn't have to come from something or somewhere since he is outside the laws of science he just is. I agree that "But, without spacetime, any origin for this matter and energy would equally be outside the laws of physics." But that "any origin" is what I call God and you call Unknown. I congratulate my opponent on his knowledge of modern science and on his ability to debate as well as exploit my mistakes. It was a good debate and I hope that anyone can see that I am new to this but that my case has been proven. This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.