You need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe.

I will offer some key points to show that we do not need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe. As agreed upon by my opponent he is taking on the BOP to show that in fact we do need a God in order to explain how the universe came to be. First ContentionSomething from nothing. I will offer a direct quote from my adversary because this ties directly into the point I am making. He states this"But how did it start? What triggered the Big Bang? How was it that everything within our world came from seemingly nothing? There is an infinite complex. No matter how deep we delve into the building blocks of our universe, there will always remain cause and effect. Therefore, beyond each effect we see, there is a cause. I argue that the ultimate cause is God. Such complexity and structure could not be birthed by randomness. "For all of those who do not read these type of debates on a regular basis, this is a version of the KCA or Kalam Cosmological argument. The KCA states thisEverything that exists has a causeThe universe existsTherefore the Universe has a causeThe most obvious cause is God(this is added by some Christians)So for me to break this down, we need to look at the main question. Can something come from nothing? We first need to define the two types of nothing that often get brought up in these debates. Nothing as know it now - operates under the laws of physics and science that we have available at this moment. Nothing that existed before time - This is saying that what is nothing now, was not the nothing before the universeThe second can be automatically removed from this argument. It is scientifically impossible to prove, and is counter intuitive. If you say the nothing that we now know, is not the nothing that existed before the creation of the universe then we are assuming that all the laws of science came into fruition when the big bag occurred. The law of general relativity, law of thermodynamics, etc. So if we define nothing this way, it is quite possible to assume that there is a possibility that the universe could arise from nothing because there are variables at play that we do not know about. This is the most logical assumption and is far easier to arrive at than adding a God into the mix. Even if my adversary where to argue that this is the same line of logic that someone could support a God with, I could classify it as a logical assumption using the same line of logic that he uses to support that God. Since he bears the BOP, it would be on him to show that his theory is more sound that mine. Now lets look at the nothing that we know about now. If he were to state that the nothing then is the same type of nothing as we know now, then all we would have to do is show that something can come from nothing at this present point in time. Is this entirely or logically possible? Doctor Lawrence Krauss has written and entire book on this, and is quite percise with showing that something can actually come from nothing. For me to break this down there has to be a small lesson in physics. There are two types of physics. Classical mechanics which operates on the scale of atoms, and quantum which goes below that scale. This entire essential argument would entail that quantum fluctuations can produce energy and matter. So on extremely small scales nothing is a bubbling, boiling, brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in a time scale so short you can't see them. Check the youtube video here >>>>( . http://www.youtube.com...), this demonstrates this as a projection. This depiction won the Nobel Prize, and shows that in the empty space in between the quarks of an atom, particles are spawning in and out of existence. In addtion to this the large hadron collider is trying to mimic the conditions in which the universe came into existence, and is working on a way to measure dark matter. Some people even worry what would happen if it actually manages to produce the same conditions in which the universe actually spawned. . http://www.lhc.ac.uk...Contention 2The type of Universe in Which we liveWe can live in a open,flat, or closed universe, this is depicted below. An closed universe would have positive curvature, a flat would have 0 and a open would have negative. This is all in euclidean terms. If we look at it further from this perspective, knowing what type of universe we live in would tell us the ending. If we lived in a closed, the universe would in the end re-collapse upon itself. Both an open and flat are infinite in spacial extent, the only difference is that in a flat universe the rate of expansion would slow down at some point. To sum this argument up in a nutshell we have to live in a flat universe because it is the only mathematically perfect one and it operates with the value of 0. Meaning if you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero net matter/energy. Since this is the case, we are operating under the same laws of physics which allow quantum fluctuations to happen and which could allow a universe to come from nothing. . http://old.richarddawkins.net...Contention 3Occam's RazorThis basically states ""If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"Look at it like this, Occam's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation, so if the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary. We can also say that creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way, but creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Occam's Razor, should be eliminated. Rebuttal 1"Evolution has taught us a great deal about life. But the one key feature that it misses is its own foundation. How did life begin? It is argued that all of the ingredients needed to begin life were on the planet"This would be after the Big Bang and overall not relevant to the topic at hand, but I will address this shortly anyway. Lawrence Krauss says this best "If you find comfort in anything, find comfort in the fact you are made of stardust. Christians may say Christ died so that you can be here, but we have to accept reality, stars died so that you can exist today"What I am gathering from this is that you are calling evolution a theory and then state that there is no possible way to prove it. Which in a way is true. Evolution is a theory and there is no way to recreate the conditions of how the first cell came into existence in a laboratory. We do have a multitude of facts that support evolution. Multitudes upon multitudes of facts that back this theory up. So much so that the catholic church adopted this and accepted it as a common belief. Most trained Catholics will openly admit evolution is a fact. Since there is such strong evidence to support it, it is hard to deny. If you say it is not iron clad you are using a Gap argument, well to be honest even going further. As to how the first cell was formed, it is a mix of random combination of particles, patterns, and variables. A thousand different dice roll and chances of something actually forming a living molecule. A study says this"It was first suggested in the 1920s that simple organic molecules could form and spontaneously polymerize into macromolecules under the conditions thought to exist in primitive Earth's atmosphere. At the time life arose, the atmosphere of Earth is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen, instead consisting principally of CO2 and N2 in addition to smaller amounts of gases such as H2, H2S, and CO. Such an atmosphere provides reducing conditions in which organic molecules, given a source of energy such as sunlight or electrical discharge, can form spontaneously. The spontaneous formation of organic molecules was first demonstrated experimentally in the 1950s, when Stanley Miller (then a graduate student) showed that the discharge of electric sparks into a mixture of H2, CH4, and NH3, in the presence of water, led to the formation of a variety of organic molecules, including several amino acids (Figure 1.2). Although Miller's experiments did not precisely reproduce the conditions of primitive Earth, they clearly demonstrated the plausibility of the spontaneous synthesis of organic molecules, providing the basic materials from which the first living organisms arose. ". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Rebuttal 2 "The very idea that we consider the existence of a Creator in many ways establishes that one exists"This is a fallacy and you can justify anything with this logic. Due to the fact we consider the existence of santa claus and how long he has been around and will always be around, he therefore exists. You could even replace God with the cookie monster and by that logic, it would be a working theory. In closingMy adversary has shown no evidence to support the fact we need to a God to explain the creation of the universe. I have shown that it is possible for the universe to come into existence without a God and cited various theories and sources to prove so. He has operated off mere personal belief and assumptions and has not met his BOP in this debate. I await his next round. Thank you