Existence Proves a Creator

First off, I would like to apologize to my opponent if he felt that I was in any way mocking him. It was not my intention to offend him. OverviewMy main point is that my opponent has not addressed any of the alternate explanations I proposed or the other conceiveable explanations and has failed to show why the only possible cause of existence is an incomprehensible, illogical god. RebuttalI would point out that I am limited in the length of my response and that these terms are fairly unimportant and, I thought, fairly clear in context. My point was that my opponent is excluding equally possible explanations. This is, as I stated, essentially a false dichotomy aka an either-or-fallacy ("a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option"[1]). This is the nature of the entirety of my opponent's argument. The only difference, as I explained, is that only one possibility has been presented (either a creator or a creator). All the words that I have asked for clarification on are important to the debate.As I previously pointed out, it is completely different to say that "If something exists then something made it" than it is to say that that something must be a god. "I think that ‘Creation proves a Creator’ is a very poetic even[sic] elegant statement, and my opponents[sic] version is clunky." The subjective elegance of a statement is not a testament to its validity. My point was that "Creation proves a Creator" can be a circular argument because it the word creation, implies (if not by definition states) that a creator created it. This is why definition is so important. If by created, my opponent means caused, it is confusing to use the term created, due to its implications. Creation essentially presupposes that he is correct."It looks like he/she has also violated his own debate rules and is engaged in an argument over semantic s[sic]." I meant the following[2]: "Semantics occurs if one uses a word that has multiple meanings, and the opponent twists the meaning around so that the definition favors him or her . . ." My point was that my opponent was not to be allowed to twist the meaning of god in a dishonest way (he has not). The point was not that I cannot ask what my opponent means by the words he uses."My opponent makes statements without showing any logical progression of reasoning. He/she just makes unsupported statements . . ." I found this to be highly hypocritcal. Consider a few of his unsupported arguments: 1. That what he defines as nothing exists or once existed 2. That a god is the only explanation for existence 3. That nature is equivalent to man-made items (with regards to his analogy) 4. That there is no logical explanation for the Big Bang (an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy: we don't have a logical explanation/ don't know if if there is one, therefore there is not one) 5. Matter cannot come from nonmatter (untrue; energy can be converted to matter for example [3])Even though I already explained both of the statements he asserts I asserted without explanation, I will reelaborate. Nature is not made by man. There is no thought or being behind it. Trucks are not natural and do not procreate. My opponent has either misunderstood my argument or deliberately presented a straw man in order to avoid it. I never said that it was a mystery how new organisms come to exist. My point was that a god fashioning new trees or animals is not observed. If my opponent actually feels that nature and products of industry are somehow the same, the burden of proof is on him to show this.My point about scientists was something I just thought should be noted. It was not an argument which is exactly why I said "not to appeal to authority."Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow on why god is redundant[4]: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." A god as an explanation is not necessary and therefore redundant. Also, in any circumstance, proposing an unknown to explain an unknown that can simply stand by itself is redundant. To say I have no counter to his analogy is blatantly false. Refer to the two paragraphs preceding the one my opponent is referring to (which I intended to be a comical close to the section; I know that my grammar is far from perfect). I already explained why it is a false analogy to compare a truck to something like a tree or other more simple things. I am not debating the meaning of nothing. I was simply asking what my opponent meant by nothing."The only logical way for ‘nothingness’ to exist is if something illogical (to humans) does exist." If my opponent wants to argue that nothingness proves the existence of "something illogical," he'll first have to prove that nothingness exists (I've already pointed out the contradictory nature of this). My opponent mentioned "the vacuum of outer space" and claimed that it is illogical that something can come from nothing, so I mentioned virtual particles (Of course they come from a different kind of nothing than the one my opponent talks of). It is a well known and well-documented phenomina that I provided a source for. My opponent certainly did mention the Big Bang in his opening statement ("Poof! The Big Bang happens. . ."). What the actual theory states is not of great importance to the debate. If my opponent would like to research it on his own, he may feel free to. I already gave other possible explanations for the origin of existence besides a creator. My opponent seems to have presented this argument: P1: The Big Bang must have an explanationP2: There is no logical explanation for the Big BangC: There is an illogical explanation Note has he provided no support for either premise (particularly P2) or defined logical. He also has not show why this "illogical thing" must be a "creator." Furthermore, if he is supporting an illogical explanation then why does he have a problem with everything coming from absolutely nothing or any other illogical explanation?Aristotle's position on the issue is irrelevant. This is another example of my opponent doing exactly what he accused me of (making an argumenum ad verecundiam)."Opponent fails to state any equally plausible explanations." I gave plausible explanations that, with Occam's razor in mind, are even more plausible explanations, such as the cause of the universe being something very simple. This is not engaging in a debate about "the nature of the creator" because none of the explanations that I proposed fit under my opponent's definition of creator. My opponent has simply asserted that they are not plausible without addressing any of them. I never meant to mock my opponent's misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. There is no need for me to "demonstrate my knowledge on the subject." Yes, it does have a “common meaning” that my opponent has missed (as is demonstrated by his talk of quadrillions of tons of solid material suddenly popping into existence.) Also I would ask the reader to note that my opponent has plagiarised Wikipedia ("Deductive reasoning links..."; no citation).Remember that a drop counts as concession.It was the source for my statement about virtual particles... Furthermore, I do not need to refute the existence of a creator. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove one.ConclusionMy opponent has failed to fulfill his burden of proof and has ignored my core argument entirely.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My opponent's evidence is non-existent.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://debate.org...[3] http://www.nobelprize.org...[4] The Grand Design