Existence Proves a Creator

First note that in R1 I specified that my opponent should not argue the final round in order to give us both an equal number of rounds. Anything more than a "vote for pro" statement should be considered to be violation of this. Also note that my opponent has dropped more of my arguments, including my argument about nature not being equivalent to that which is man made.SummaryMy opponent once again accused me of that which he is guilty of. He again failed to address my central point that a creator is not the only possible explanation for existence. He provided no rebuttals to the other possible explanations I presented or other conceivable explanations that do not fall under my opponent's definition of “creator.”Rebuttals and Final SatementOn NothingnessI have not once debated the meaning of the word "nothing." I acknowledged my opponent's definition of nothing as the "absolute lack of anything.” It is not at all a trivial word. Discussion would have been impossible without a clear definition. My point was that my opponent simply asserted in this debate that once there was an "absolute lack of anything" without providing evidence for this. He simply assumed that something did not always exist and could not have always existed (besides a creator). Making a distinction is different from saying "No, that's not what nothing is." I never did the latter. I was debating whether "nothing" exists (which as I said, seems a rather contradictory claim) and pointing out that it is a false dichotomy to claim that either one must believe that there is a god or one must believe that something came from “the absolute lack of anything.”Missed My PointMy point was that my opponent provided no evidence for his assertion that "there must be an illogical explanation for existence." He stated the following: "The premise is that ‘nothing did exist’ except for God..." If this is his premise, it does nothing for him. He provided no evidence for his assertion/premise that nothing existed or that a god did.AristotleIt's different to argue for a position taken from someone else than it is to argue that a position is correct because someone held it. Notice I never said my position is right because Stephen Hawking said it is. My opponent asked me to address the fact that Aristotle agreed with him. That is an argument from authority. My logical reason for dismissing the argument is that it is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with my opponent. As I previously pointed out, I could just as easily point out how many scientists do not believe in a god. As I previously stated, it should be noted that those who deal with the origin of the universe do not feel that a god is necessary as an explanation, but this does not constitute a proper argument against one (which is of course why I presented others).Note that my opponent did not even explain the “PRIME MOVER theory.” He expected me to argue against a position that he did not even present. My opponent gave no reason why this “prime mover” must be a god. One can simply argue that the universe has always existed, in some form. Maybe it would be incorrect to call it “the universe,” but it is special pleading to assert that only a god could have not needed a cause. I would point out the hypocrisy in claiming that there must be an explanation and then proposing a god without an explanation as one.Redundancy"I can easily refute Hawkings[sic]. Where did the law of gravity come from?"I would like to thank my opponent for displaying my point perfectly. My opponent completely misunderstood my point on the matter of redundancy once again and pointed out the own flaw in his argument. It is special pleading to suggest that one must ask the question "Where did gravity come from?" but not "Where did the Creator come from?" To propose an unexplained god to explain gravity is redundant. It is utterly pointless musing. A god has no predictive capability or special explanatory power. He accepted that "Where did the Creator come from?" is unanswerable but failed to show why the question “Where did gravity come from?” need be answered. My opponent claimed that it need be asked where energy came from but it need not be asked where this “creator” came from. That is a baseless, unwarranted assertion and a fallacy (special pleading).Why must one go back a step and say something created gravity? Why not stop with that which we know exists? There is no reason to take a step back. One might as well propose an infinite regression of god creating god creating god or propose an arbitrary number of gods and claim that the first one is special and need not be explained. If something always existed or was uncaused, there is no reason why it absolutely must have been a god/creator as defined by my opponent. It is redundant to propose an unknown to explain an unknown in this manner. Big BangMy opponent seemed to have been desperate to go off on any tangent in this debate instead of actually fulfilling his burden of proof. This is a debate not a lecture. I don't need to explain the Big Bang theory because it's irrelevant to my contentions. All I was pointing out is that according to the theory, solid material did not suddenly pop into existence, and particles/material did not come until later (after the first expansion of the universe) [1].Let it be noted that I am a self-professed non-theistic Satanist and do not appreciate this unsupported and irrelevant attack on Satanists. "Big words, serve as substitute[sic] for an actual coherent logical thought, and petty accusations substitute for a counter-argument."I've already shown the irony and hypocrisy of this statement.Read What I Wrote1. I responded to all of them. If my opponent had specified which he felt I did not explain, I would have attempted to again. Note that I responded to his challenge on the matter of nature/existence being equivalent to products of industry, and he, in response, dropped the argument. 2. See 33. A source clearly cited for 2. I fail to understand how my opponent read my argument and did not understand this. The reader should of course note that as I have already explained, the page about Quantum fluctuation was my source that gave me "the authority to make very technical statements," as my opponent puts it, with regards to virtual particles.4. I would say this of my opponent. He failed to explain why the only possible explanation of existence is a Creator and did not address my main contention.5. My arguments have been entirely in my own words (besides the quotations). My quotation of Hawking was ancillary. My opponent, on the other hand, not only plagiarized Wikipedia, but also asserted that I must address “Aristotle's PRIME MOVER theory” when he did not even explain it as argued by Aristotle.My opponent then attempted to get me to limit my response to even fewer words than his R3 statement. This seems to me to be a desperate tactic. I would point out to my opponent that he does not dictate the response length and has no right to impose his standards on this debate.Alternate ExplanationsI was hoping that my opponent would have a problem with other conceivable explanations, however he did not address this argument at all. This is concession. I conclude that I have won.ConclusionMy opponent provided no evidence that something had to come from nothing. Even if it is agreed upon that existence/nature came from something, a “creator” is not proven. Saying that a “creator” could always exist but something other than a “creator” could not have always existed is special pleading. My opponent addressed none of the alternate explanations and failed to meet his burden of proof to show that an incomprehensible god/being is the only possible explanation for existence. He dropped all of my main arguments. Also, I apologize for previously misspelling "plagiarized," "argumentum," and "phenomena."Thank You.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...