A creator of the universe exists

Creator of the universe: an mind thatcreated the universe My first argument is going to be based on the"Five Proofs" by Saint Thomas Aquinas that he summarized in his"Summa Theologia". Thomas Aquinas was the first major Catholicphilosopher. The Catholic Church loved Saint Thomas Aquinas because it was thefirst time they could argue with atheist on their own grounds. 1. The Unmoved Mover Everything is in Motion (evident from our senses andthe Kinetic theory of matter) Things are only moved by other thing, nothing movesitself Infinite regress of anything let alone movers isimpossible Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from which allother motion proceeds Now this argument alone doesn't do anything that provesGod. This simply proves that there is something from which all motion precedes. We know from science and causation that not only that everything is in motionincluding seemingly stationary objects but also that everything needs to be setin motion from other things. As Thomas Aquinas "But nothing can be movedfrom a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state ofactuality. .. it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in thesame way a thing should be both mover and moved i. e. that it should moveitself. ". Infinite regress is impossible; I will show that infinity isfalse notion by Hilbert’s Hotel. Imagine a hotel with an infinite amount ofrooms and with an infinite number of guests in each of those rooms. Now a newperson comes and wants to stay the night, the manager says no problem! I willjust ask the guest in room number 1 to move to room number 2, the guest innumber 2 move to room 3, the guest in room 3 move to number 4, and so on, andthen you can have room number 1. Now the hotel is again full, but what ifentire infinity tour bus filled people wants to stay at the hotel, he again sayno problem and has everyone go from the room they are in to the room double of theirown. Therefore opening up an infinite number of rooms. Now we can see thatinfinity is incoherent concept that doesn't exist in reality AT LEAST not qualitatively. When we are talking about God's infinity we are referring to an unlimitedamount rather than an actual amount as infinity. He is infinite in quality thanrather than in qualitatively. My opponent may say that this isn't a logicallyvalid argument but I would like my opponent to note it is inductive ratherdeductive. 2. Kalam Cosmological Argument My second argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument,from which was first stated by Al-Ghazali. He wrote, "Every being whichbegins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins;therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning. " I will be defended thecontemporary argument by William Lane Craig. William Lane Craig formulates the argument as follows: 1. Whateverbegins to exist has a cause. 2. The universebegan to exist. 3. Therefore,the universe has a cause. Now in the previous argument, I told the reason whypremise 2 cannot be false because the concept of infinity is not qualitativelytrue. But there are additional reasons to believe that the universe is noteternal. Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University inMassachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with aneternal past. Another way we can show that infinite is incoherent is by doinganother analogy popular with William Lane Craig. Suppose I have an infiniteamount of coins and you take away all the odd ones. I would still haveinfinity. So infinity minus infinity equals infinity, now what about if youtake away all coins about 3, now I have 3, so infinity minus infinity is equalto 3. Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem states that any universe, which has, onaverage, a rate of expansion greater 1 that system had to have a finitebeginning. Now with the first premise, out of nothing, nothing comes. The firstpremise is arrived at by any form of reasoning and causation; we don't seepizza's popping into existence. We don't not see earths popping into existence. Why would universes be exclusively what comes out of nothing? Try to imaginesomething coming out of nothing prior to the existence. As David Oderberg oncesaid the existence of nothing followed by something is ridiculous because thewords followed by cannot be understood since followed by is incoherent for atime when there was no time. Truly my opponent has the burden of proof indefeating premise one since it seems a properly basic belief. 3. The Teleological Argument My next argument is the teleological argument in whichwas originally proposed by Islamic writers but most popularly by William Paley. Richard Swinburne is an avid defender of the teleological argument. 1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to physicalnecessity, chance, or design 2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance 3. Therefore it is due to design This is a simple deductive argument whose form I getfrom William Lane Craig. When laws of nature are expressed, there are certainconstants that are independent of the laws of nature. Furthermore, there areonly certain values of ranges in which it could be life-permitting, for examplethe cosmological constant (also called dark energy) exactly makes up for thelack of matter in the universe. As Dr. Hugh Jones said "One part in 10^37is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. Thefollowing analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent indimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (Incomparison, the money to pay for the U. S. federal government debt would coverone square mile less than two feet deep with dimes. ). Next, pile dimes fromhere to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold afriend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the reddime are one in 10^37. Now can it be due to necessity? No because they areindependent of the laws of nature. What about chance? Well, the fine-tuning ofuniverse has a combination a pattern and a sense of randomness, similar in away that a code for spies or something similarly sinister, therefore we can successfullyconclude that it is design. It seems infinitely more probable that a designer exists;Paley's watch seems to suggest that God exists. The analogy helps to supportthe assertion that it is not chance. We don't assume a watch on a beach issimply made by chance. While it is not a perfect analogy nevertheless noanalogy is perfect and this still supports the second premise. Therefore thefine tuning of the universe is due to design. Conclusion I thank for my opponent for taking the time to considermy arguments and I hope we have a detailed discussion about the truth of acreator. I will post sources in the comments. I have many and it will not fit in my case.