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

I thank you for the debate. Now while there is certainly a number of ways of approaching this, I think the best way is probably to expose the holes in the argument. While I could point out that modern cosmological physics holds that the universe might just be zero sum. It seems to be the case that there is an abundance of energy and matter, and keeping in mind that energy is matter we note that there is simply a massive amount of energy in the universe. However, if we look, we find that this energy actually cancels out the negative energy such as the distance between objects and expansion of the universe. As such, it isn't ex nilho, but rather a simple case that 0 = -1 + 1. This works out and leaves us with no mystery at all. The question of causes is likewise negated by quantum physics. We look at causes at our level of scale and we find that they are useful and so we look at them. However, it in quantum physics this is turned on it's head, and events are causeless and just happen. If there is energy, it will rip into an electron and positron this amount of time and then fall back into itself at random. It's an absolutely causeless event. As such, there's no reason to suppose the Big Bang needs to have a cause or exist within time, it might actually just happen and the it might just a causeless zero sum energy fluctuation. -- There's a joke, why does time exist? So that everything doesn't happen at once. The real question is why does spacetime exist, and it seems that the answer is so that everything isn't nothing. However, this is pretty cutting edge science (though several decades old) and though it provides philosophically fulfilling answers, let's largely ignore it. Rather than provide real answers that science is marching towards, I'd like to expose exactly how hollow your argument actually is... Let's say, I don't know where the energy comes from. I don't know where the matter comes from. I don't understand where the entropy (actually a bit harder problem) comes from. The first law of thermodynamics applies to heat, it states "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings." In a zero sum universe, this applies perfectly well (the total energy would always be zero). However, it does hold accurate that so long as the universe isn't gaining energy from some outside source, that it has the same amount of energy it always has. Created is a perfectly fine word to use, and let's allow the implication that none of this matter has been created. You now ask, "How did it all get here?" To which I say: "I don't know." -- "Why can we not say that there is or was an all powerful being/s or beings that created?" We could say that, but it doesn't make it true. It was all invented by a guy in a funny hat named Jayne in the 26th century. I can certainly say that, but why is it true? -- "Now all that I am stating is that we can state that there is a possibility that there is/was/were a Creator/s." This does not follow. Just because we could say something doesn't make it possible. I put two nickles into an empty jar and now I have 103032092393302039290443 nickles in that jar. -- "Now philosophically if there is a possibility of something then it must exist in some possible universe." This does not follow. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it actually exists. There's nothing philosophically or otherwise which allows this conclusion. -- Now if there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe. ... Now if It/they was truly omnipotent then It/they will truly exist. This does not follow. You are taking the conceptual and converting it unceremoniously into the actual. It is possible that there exists the greatest jelly doughnut ever, now it is possible so it must exist in some possible universe. Now because the greatest jellydoughnut would be one that actually exists, it must the case that that jellydoughnut actually exists. Therefore that jellydoughnut actually exists. And having that jellydoughnut would be better than not having that jellydoughnut and since that jellydoughnut is the best jellydoughnut, it must be that I have that jellydoughnut. Therefore I have the best possible jellydoughnut ever. HEY! WHERE IS MY JELLY DOUGHNUT! >>1. Where did all the energy/matter in the Universe come from? I don't know. >>2. There must be a beginning. This is not proven. >>3. Is there a system that put it into motion? I don't know. >>4. If so what is that system and where did it go? I don't know. >>5. If you say that the system is only a system that works under certain circumstances then what are those circumstance? I don't know. >>6. If we know those circumstances then why can we not reproduce those same circumstances? I don't know. (Though I'm doing this for the sake of the argument, the actual answer is clearly the big bang and we very much are reproducing those same circumstances in the LHC, that's one of the major purposes of the Large Hadron Collider). >>7. If we do not know those circumstances then how come we deny a Creator/s? We have no evidence for a creator. This is what you must prove. >>8. Why can we not say that there is or was an all powerful being/s or beings that created? We could say that. But we have no reason to suppose that it's a true statement. >>9. There is a possibility that there is/was/were a Creator/s. This doesn't follow. I'm not certain what is and isn't possible, but I've seen no sound arguments from you that force me to accept this conclusion. >>10. Now philosophically if there is a possibility of something then it must exist in some possible universe. This is false. Philosophically there is no such requirement. >>11. If there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe. This wrongly makes the leap from conceptual to material. You can't say it's better if this exists, therefore it exists, even if that thing is by definition the best thing. The 'thing' being considered here is a concept. Whereas the 'better thing' is an actual material existence. >>12. if there is a possible universe that an omnipotent being/s exists/existed then it/they would be greater than if It/they had not existed even in a possible universe. If It/they is greater than It/they was then It/they is not truly an omnipotent being. Now in order for It/they to be truly omnipotent being/s than It/they must be as great as is possible. Defining something as something that exists by being great enough to exist, doesn't make that thing exist. >>13. Apply the same principal that we just applied to the possible to reality. If this were true, I'd have that jelly doughnut. >>14. This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s. You have not shown is something that follows from your argument. --- I wonder why you bother with the first mover argument and the first cause if you're just going to try and force it into existence with Anselm's Ontological argument. It's all an argument from ignorance. You say there's bound to be a reason and then assign it to God. However, you then turn around and magic god into existence with discredited wordplay. However, this is one of the more professional arguments I've run into, for that, bravo. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Though, interestingly your version of the cosmological argument is based on the existence of matter rather than causality. If I say the Big Bang could have never happened, your argument tends to crumble. But that's neither here nor there.