A creator of the universe exists

The Unmoved Mover/Hilbert's HotelFirst, my opponent notes that Aquinas' cosmological is not valid in and of itself to prove god, yet provides the same argument numerous times derived from infinite regresses, but in different forms. I will first note that my opponent has arbitrarily allowed himself the power to end the infinite regress, and he shall label that end "God." He gives absolutely no reasons why we are to believe that this "God" is not subject to the very same laws which Pro claims to be to his own benefit.On InfinityI will also note my opponent's seemingly confused sense of what "infinity" means. Hilbert's Hotel is a nice little thought experiment that has intrigued many, but it attempts to define practicality to that which is purely conceptual, infinity. You say that this hotel has an infinite number of guests and an infinite number of rooms. And there anyone who knows what the concept of infinity means sees the problem: infinity is not a number, so any thought experiments which assume it is or place any amount of comparison to a number is simply exploiting the degree to which many do not understand the basic applications of such a concept. My opponent thinks that "infinity is a false notion." I believe anyone who has taken basic Calculus knows that infinity is an entirely useful and important concept, without which much in mathematics would be lacking. Attempts to disregard the infinite regress for the simple fact that many, including Pro, don't understand it's implications should be considered rhetorically deceptive. Pro has confused the concept once again when he says: "infinity is incoherent concept (sic) that doesn't exist in reality AT LEAST not qualitatively." You can see once again he is mistaken, for infinity, being a concept and not a numeral, does not exist quantitatively. It's supposed "incoherence" should be seen as Pro's understanding of it as incoherent, for it is a relatively understood and quite useful concept in terms of mathematics. A developed mathematician would truly gawk at the way in which the concept has been abused thus far. The inappropriate extrapolation from infinity to a number (any number, even if undefined) may show why it is so puzzling.On Al-Ghazali, Kalam Cosmological, CraigMy opponent has once again said that "the concept of infinity is not qualitatively true." You will see once again his mistake, in two senses: infinity is not capable of being established quantitatively, and the statement of "not qualitatively true" is one that I find incoherent, at best, and at worst, misleading. If Pro is insisting on using this mathematical concept, he must show that he knows how to use it correctly: it is not something that is of a "quantitative or qualitative" nature. It is a mathematical concept, and I see your descriptors as being on par with someone saying "The limit is not qualitatively true" (and note a limit may very well be "infinity," for a limit as well is not a quantitative concept: http://www.mathsisfun.com...)You will see once again in Pro's use of Craig's argument, that he has deceptively provided a hypothetical which is, frankly, absurd: "an infinite amount of coins." Infinity is not a quantitative concept, and any comparisons which assume it can be labeled as such should be distrusted.On Creation Ex-nihiloHere I will note the Higgs-Boson particle, a theoretical particle at this point in time but considered "just around the corner" by some of the top particle physicists. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)There is some speculation that the particle was discovered in July of this year, and although it is not 100% confirmed, all tests have proven consistent with the theory at hand. I will quote here:In the Standard Model, the Higgs particle is a boson with no spin, electric charge, or color charge. It is also very unstable,decaying into other particles almost immediately. The Higgs particle is a quantum excitation of one component of the four component Higgs field, a scalar field with two neutral and two electrically charged components, forming a complexdoublet of the weak isospin SU(2) symmetry, and with U(1) weak hypercharge of +½ (or +1 depending on convention). The field has a "Mexican hat" shaped potential and takes on a nonzero strength everywhere (including otherwise empty space) which breaks the weak isospin symmetry in its vacuum state. When this happens, three of the four Higgs field components are "absorbed" by the originally massless SU(2) and U(1) gauge bosons (this is the "Higgs mechanism") to become the longitudinal components of the now-massive W and Z bosons. The fourth electrically neutral component separately couples to other particles known as fermions (via Yukawa couplings), causing these to acquire mass as well. The fourth component's quantum excitations manifest as the Higgs boson.Arguments which claim a necessary and self-evident creator more often than not rely on things that we don't know, or that are very difficult for us to understand. You will see this with infinity and the concepts constant misuse and abuse, and you will see it in the overwhleming assumption of the impossibility of massive creation ex-nihilo, which ultimately become exploited to the benefit of "God." I think it is quite apparent that the Higgs-Boson is appropriately nick-named the "God particle," for it is quite apparent that further confirmations of this particle will prove even more damaging to the theist (and the deist) than even the Copernican Revolution. (De Revolutionibus: http://www.geo.utexas.edu...(On%20the%20Revolutions),_%201.pdf)On BOPYou will note that much of my opponent's argument relies on the simple insistence that an infinite regress cannot possibly exist (largely stemming from incorrect assumptions and applications of the concept of infinity). You must note that this "creator" has been exempt from this regress, and Pro's insistence that Presmise 1 puts the Burden of Proof on me is absolutely incorrect. The Burden of Proof does not depend at all on how "basic" you believe any belief to be, nor does it depend on how widespread that belief is. It is quite clearly, as anyone who truly understands the BOP will see, on my opponent, for it is a positive, affirmative statement. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)The Teleological"Fine" tuning is evident, and conceded. But its applications are not. My opponent gives absolutely no reason to believe that these constants, these "universals," are independent of the laws of nature, unless the definition of the oftentimes vague word "nature" is to be misconstrewed. There is quite an ample voice within the scientific community that it appears as though these constants were entirely necessary, although various theories on why this is the case are still in the process. My opponent also gives no reason to believe that it was not simply chance: for the unlikelihood of a certain set of characteristics cannot possibly be used to equate it to impossibility. In the dime analogy, it is just as probable that the red dime will be chosen as opposed to any other individual dime (1/10^37). In short, the conclusion of design (which also rests the BOP on Pro) is quite premature to say the least. If modern physics has taught us anything, it is that the naively assumed "order" and "harmony" of the world as posited by the ancients could not have been further from the truth. Chaos would be a more appropriate word.In terms of the "watchmaker," evolution does plenty if not an overabundance in putting that argument to shame. I will provide some texts which show how the dominance of deism/theism (which was stolen from the Stoics) was dealt a blow that it has yet to recover from:Copernicus: On the Revolutions in the Heavenly Bodies (1543)Newton: Principia Mathematica (1687)Descartes: Principles of Philosophy (1644)Galileo: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632)