Deism vs Atheism

First Cause Pro says deism is the most reasonable because it agrees with everything we know. This commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it [http://www.fallacyfiles.org...] Any explanation at all doesn’t make it true or more likely. He then says it’s more reasonable to think so because something existed as opposed to nothing, but this is the very main point of the debate. It has not been shown yet. Saying something existed is still claiming something specific. Pro goes on about nothing -literally-, but this is misunderstanding my argument and thus committing the straw man fallacy. My argument has nothing to do with nothing. Properly understood, the argument is saying since before is unintelligible, we should accept no claims until it’s shown before to be intelligible. Pro’s entire paragraph here is just skipping over the argument. We shouldn’t accept if something or nothing existed because we simply don’t know! Pro is using his reasoning he obtained from the universe to argue outside the universe, since it’s unknown what's before such reasoning is flawed and unjustified. Some type of nothing which we don’t understand could’ve existed, we don’t even know what nothing is, making statements about it and claiming you’ve proven something is again flawed and unjustified. This argument still stands. Pro hand waves over it throughout the debate. Ex Nihilo Pro doesn’t respond to my argument about the laws breaking. It argues against him. Lacking a property isn’t a property, because a property is what something possesses. I see no reason to accept that a possession is needed for something to come from nothing. For example, the reason why the Earth doesn’t rotate in an up and down motion is because of Kepler's laws. These laws are restricting the ability of the Earth and bounding it to an elliptical orbit. However without this restriction it’s free to do whatever. Not necessarily because it posses something, but because it doesn’t posses something. I would like to note here I was only arguing from the possibility of Creation Ex Nihilo. Not that it actually happened, there’s no way to prove it actually happened nor do I believe that it happened anymore than I believe a god caused us. Just arguing from the possibility, I don’t want to be misunderstood. Nonetheless, my argument stands. Vacuum particles I’m not sure why Pro argued this way. I never disputed that there’s laws that allow these particles to exist. I was arguing that they had nothing for a cause and just because the laws allow them to exist, doesn’t mean it caused them. The uncertainty principle allows these particles to exist, but this doesn’t mean it causes them. The uncertainty principle says “The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision” [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...] All can see that there’s nothing casually significant about it. It’s not about causation at all. The uncertainty principle allows these particles to exist, but doesn’t cause them. The ground allows a house to exist, but the ground didn’t cause the house. My computer allows me to write this argument, run software, and play videogames, but this doesn’t mean the computer caused me to do any of this. In the same way, the uncertainty principle allows these particles to exist, because if we had nothing, we would know the position (0) and how fast it’s going (0). I would like to bring up something very interesting from Pro’s own source. The meaning of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that "something" can arise from "nothing" if the "something" returns to the "nothing" after a very short time [http://science.jrank.org...]. Pro then goes on to say a vacuum isn’t nothing. I think it’s strange that Pro acted like I said a vacuum was nothing, when the very text he quoted was me agreeing with him, saying the vacuum isn’t nothing. Pro then says Harvard never said VPs come from nothing. I encourage everyone to read it again. Although it would seem impossible that a particle could materialize from nothing—not even from energy— it so happens that no laws of physics are violated because the particle is annihilated by its corresponding antiparticle before either one can be detected. [https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...] It clearly says so. This argument still stands. Occam's Razor How in the world does adding another cause to the mix mean less assumptions? It makes more variables to defend, like what caused this cause. Pro here is saying an uncaused (or caused) something caused God that caused the universe. While I’m saying, the universe was uncaused. I think it’s clear what hypothesis is simpler. I have no layers of causation, while Pro has at least three. Next, Pro tries to say Deism is simpler. He never uses Occam’s method of determining it. He says Deism is simpler by these lines of evidences. Something doesn't come from nothing We’re using what we only know -something- to critique “nothing”. It would be simpler to say that something can come from nothing because we don’t understand what nothing is. Certainly we all would agree removing something removes tons of assumptions. This also doesn’t object to my other way of the universe being uncaused. In a way we don’t understand. It is compatible with our understanding of our universe and reality So is just claiming the universe was uncaused in an unknown way. As I said before any explanation at doesn’t make it true or simpler, Pro is committing an argument from ignorance. The belief that someone who can mimic my writing and reasoning style hacked into by DDO account and wrote this argument on my computer doesn’t contradict anything within our understanding. This doesn’t mean it’s the simplest explanation, nor does this meet a criteria of determining what’s simpler. It doesn't assume anything about this creator It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that it assumes a creator. Conclusion I feel the most disheartening thing about this debate was the vague definition of “creator”. I thought going into this that creator meant the typical definition when applied to God. Only to find out that anything at all that created the universe is God. That’s just something I think should be considered. Pro’s argument for Deism was mainly an argument from ignorance. He never proved virtual particles have a cause. Pro didn’t successfully respond to the intelligibility argument. He kept arguing from a property of nothing, never really addressing my objections to it. In the last round, he dropped his argument from the laws breaking down, because it doesn’t help him. With Occam’s razor, he never showed Deism was simpler by making less assumptions. He added assumptions and never proved it made least assumptions than Atheism, on top of that, he committed a straw man fallacy. The unintelligible argument still stands, along with occam’s razor in showing Atheism is more reasonable than Deism. The Deistic argument commits numerous fallacies. I feel I have shown Atheism is more reasonable. Go forth and vote.