There is a God who created the universe

In the fist round I proposed six reasons for the existence of God, for me to win, I only have to prove one of them. In the previous round, I can infer my opponent believes the following things: (a) Since we have science, we have no need for a God. (b) It is logical to believe that several chemical building blocks have here for all of time, but illogical to believe that a God has existed for all of time. (c) The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters. (d) The aspect of God varies from culture to culture, and is therefore a cultural aspect. I will take these one by one, starting with A. My opponent said: "the universe has always existed, which consequently means it wasn't created, which clearly means there's no need for a creator, which means that a god creating the universe is entirely nonsensical" First of all, the burden of proof falls on my opponent to convince me that the universe has been around forever. Secondly, my opponent holds the belief that because we have science, the belief in God is an outdated principle. This leads me to the very philosophical question: What is science? The Dictionary defines science as: The study of our world and those who inhabit it; and I agree with that definition. The problem is this though: Who invited science? Well, humans were obviously the ones who first tried to explain their world through logic instead of religion, so humans are the creators of science. Humans are flawed. Therefore, science is flawed: I'll make it simplier: (a) Humans invited science. (b) Humans are flawed (we don't know everything) (c) Therefore, science is flawed. So, since science is obviously flawed because it was invited by flawed things, it lacks credibility. So, unless you prove to me that the science is true, it has no credibility. And even if you were to prove the science true, since you are human and humans our flawed, your conclusion would be flawed. Which would make it not true. Secondly, my opponent holds the very outdated belief that: This town ain't big enough for the two of us. He believes that since science exists and it can explain how our universe was created, there is no God. Why can't the two exist simultaneously? My opponent's next belief is: It is logical to believe that several chemical building blocks have here for all of time, but illogical to believe that a God has existed for all of time. He proves this when he says: Firstly, the energy the universe is composed of and its forms have always existed AND Although the idea of a creator has already been negated, this is only further helping that idea, because it's impossible to be around before something that has always existed. So my opponent is basically saying: The universe has been around forever, and he is asking, How could God be around forever? I'll take his first statement first: The universe has been around forever. So, there was no big bang? No spark of creation? Even, in a scientific sense, the universe couldn't have been around forever. Most scientist even acknowledge that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate each and everyday, so that poses the question: When did it start expanding? That would have to start when the universe was created, and it is impossible to be around forever if you we're created. Secondly, the question: How was God always? I find that question irrelevant and I will use the following analogy to prove so. You are sitting in a room with a chalkboard and a piece of chalk. The chalkboard is empty. You go to use the bathroom. A few minutes later you return to the room to find that a drawing of a tree is now on the chalkboard. What can you assume? A logical person would assume that while you we're out of the room, somebody came into that room and drew the tree on the chalkboard. That is what a theist believes. The tree represents the universe, you the human race. An illogical person, also know as an atheist, would believe the following, that while you were out of the room, a series of scientific things happened over several generations and almost *magically* the tree appeared on the chalkboard. Which one is more likely? Now, I have just proved how unintelligible atheism is, but I still have to prove the irrelevancy. The irrelevancy is: Why spend all your time figuring out how the person who drew the tree on the chalkboard got there. The creation (the tree) proves the creator (the artist). Any questions? My opponent also holds the belief: The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters. He proved this when he said: Ok. .. well, we have laws of science, which means the universe is perfect; therefore, the flying spaghetti monster exists. What my opponent is trying to say is that, my conclusion that a perfect universe requires a perfect creator could actually prove the existence of anything I wanted it to, even flying spaghetti monsters. Well, do flying spaghetti monsters have the ability to create a perfect universe? No. A God is the only one who would have this kind of power, so my statement can only prove that a God exists. Lastly, my opponent claims: The aspect of God varies from culture to culture, and is therefore a cultural aspect. He proved this to me when he said: And considering that the prominence of atheism generally varies from country to country, then I'd say that the belief in God is, indeed, cultural. It is true that the number of Gods, the nature of God, and other religious factor vary from culture to culture and religion to religion, but still no culture has ever walked the Earth and not tried to explain its presence. Even atheists do it! Atheism is just a godless religion. Instead of a God they have science, so are atheists that much smarter than than theists? In my opinion, no. Because, they basically believe the same thing! My rebutting my opponent's rebuttals, my statements stand, which means, thus far, I am winning this debate!