god

Looking over my opponent's arguments as a whole, there are a few main reasons why they should be rejected altogether.1. These arguments are PLAGIARIZED. My opponent has directly copied and pasted everything he said from another website. You can find the original arguments made here: http://www.hamzatzortzis.com.... They are also made on many other sites. This demonstrates that my opponent is incapable of making a single unique argument by himself. I challenge my opponent to actually create his own argument in the next round instead of just copying and pasting it from another website. Needless to say, the conduct point for this debate should go to Con.2. These arguments do not pertain to the resolution. The resolution is not "God exists". As I said in my first constructive, neither side is trying to affirm or negate the existence of a God. Rather, my opponent is burdened to prove that the universe could not have come into existence in any other way besides being created by a supernatural entity. The arguments that he is using is trying to affirm that this entity exists in the first place, which is not what we are trying to debate about. I will explain this later when I refute each argument that my opponent plagiarized.3. There are no citations for his arguments. When copying his argument from another website exactly, my opponent forgot to include the citations for this argument. Every argument my opponent has made with a citation number must automatically be disregarded because there is no way to tell if this argument is true based on a lack of actual citations. This is also further evidence that my opponent plagiarized his arguments.I will now attempt to specifically refute each argument my opponent has copied.My Opponent's First ConstructiveMy opponent's first constructive can be summed up as follows: "The universe began to exist". I agree. My Opponent's Second ConstructiveIn this constructive, my opponent (or rather, the website my opponent plagiarized from) addresses four different possibilities for how the universe came to exist.1) Created or brought into being from nothingThis is the option that I will be defending as it has everything to do with my first constructive. The first thing my opponent does is claim (without citations), that it is inconceivable that the universe could have come from nothing. He offers no reason why, and doesn't bother to give anyone an explanation to lead to his conclusion, he just states his conclusion and moves on. Sorry, that isn't very convincing. If my opponent's first objection to my argument is "it's inconceivable", then we need only to look at my first constructive to refute that.The next thing my opponent does is claim that since a quantum vacuum is actually something rather than nothing, so that cannot be used as an explanation for the origins of the universe. By saying this, my opponent has acknowledged that it is possible for the universe to come into existence via quantum vacuum. Because of this, all I need to do is prove that the quantum vacuum qualifies as "nothing" to win this debate.So what is a quantum vacuum? The definition that the website my opponent plagiarized gave is completely wrong. A quantum vacuum is not a field of energy, it is an environment that allows different electromagnetic waves and particles to pop in and out of existence [1]. Its default state is that of non-existence, or rather, quantum fluctuations that occur in this vacuum happen so quickly that it is almost impossible to tell that the energy was even there in the first place. This is exactly why a quantum vacuum can be defined as nothing - because 99.9% of the time, there is a complete absence of energy, and when there is energy present, it is zero total energy regardless.Given this, it is scientifically possible for the universe to have come into existence from nothing.2) Self caused or self createdI am not arguing for this, so I will let this drop.3) Created or brought into being by something else that began to existSame as #24) Created or brought into being by a non-created or un-caused entityThis is the conclusion that my opponent wishes to defend. Please note that my opponent came to this conclusion through an argument from ignorance. He is simply asserting that this position is true because he cannot think of another better explanation. In other words, the options 1-3 that he gave were wrong, so #4 must be right by default. This is not an argument. Not only that, but since I have proven that his first option is both possible and plausible, the logical fallacy he used to come to this conclusion isn't even correct.Another problem with this conclusion is that my opponent gives ZERO evidence to support it. He cites the Qur'an multiple times, which is just about as good of evidence as me citing a cook book for my conclusion. Citing certain scriptures in the Qur'an DOES NOT prove that the universe requires a creator, it just proves that my opponent BELIEVES it does. That isn't an argument, so this conclusion fails.My opponent's plagiarized arguments have been refuted.I'd like to point out that besides for the argument my opponent copied that touched upon the universe being created from nothing, my opponent has yet to refute any of my arguments. My first constructive has proven that it is scientifically possible for the universe to have been created from nothing, meaning that the universe does not require a creator.The resolution has been negated.Citation:1. http://www.aip.org...;