Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is the Best Explanation for the Beginning of the Universe

IntroductionI am going to concede that the universe had a beginning in accordance with the debate structure. It will also be an accepted axiom that the universe had some sort of cause. It will not be an accepted axiom however, that the universe came from nothing. The universe could have began to exist, but come from something instead of nothing (without leading to an infinite regress). Basically, I have some what of an alternative explanation for the hypothetical coming into being of the universe which involves the universe coming from something.C1) Theistic HypothesisIn this debate, Pro seems to just throw a bunch of names of principles and arguments in my general direction. He then goes on to say they hold, therefore his position is most likely correct (if only life were that easy). Naming principles and arguments only lets us know that these principles and arguments exist, not that their conclusions are true. Take this for example:"Plantinga's transworld depravity thesis[2] holds that it's possible that it's not within God's power to actualize a world where the agents that God has created doesn't sin. This shows that...." - PenningtonIn the above my opponent names a principle, claims it holds then draws a conclusion off it. Nobody is going to accept this section from Pro as valid argumentation, as all he is doing is naming things and claiming they hold without any support.C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine CreationThis section seems to suffer the same problem with the structure as the last. He names two arguments, and assumes that means he has shown the conclusion of those arguments true. This fact alone makes this entire section from Pro invalid, as well as the last. However, for the sake of debate I will object to these arguments.Argument for Atheism (Rebuttal to Modal Ontological Argument)This Argument for Atheism below shows that the crucial premise of the Modal Ontological Argument (the strongest Ontological Argument) is false. This means that the conclusion that God exists, does not follow a priori.P1: If God exists, he is a maximally great beingP2. If a maximally great being exists, humans do not existP3: Humans existC: God does not existPremise 1 and Premise 3 are evident enough, and the conclusion follows logically. This means, that all that is left is a defense of Premise 2 of my argument.Argument for Atheism: The Defense of Premise 2If a maximally great being exists, then the initial Big Bang conditions would have been fine-tuned so a greater species than humans evolved, and humans would not exist. If humans exist, then we are taking up a "choice spot" in a sense, which would have been filled by a greater species if said being existed. Thus, if a maximally great being exists, then a greater species evolved and made it to "now" from the initial Big Bang conditions instead of humans (a less great species), due to the nature of the choices a maximally great being has to make; ones consistent with himself.One could say that a maximally great being has free will, and can freely choose a lesser great species over a more great species to evolve after The Big Bang if he wishes. However, free will does not mean a maximally great being can contradict his essence. A maximally great being cannot create a perfectly spherical cube for example; that goes against his logical nature. In contrast, a maximally great being choosing a less great species over a more great species to evolve and make it to "now", would be a maximally great being choosing to contradict his own nature; which would be impossible if a maximally great being actually exists.The Argument for Atheism above follows logically, and I defended the crucial premise sufficiently. This means that you cannot deny Atheism without denying that you exist. If a maximally great being exists, then any possible world with species must contain only species greater than ours if a maximally great being is to be consistent with himself. Our species exists. Therefore, it follows that God does not exist.C1B - The Teleological ArgumentWhen my opponent uses the Ontological Argument, he automatically accepts that the definition of a divine God is a maximally great being. Therefore, even if the Teleological Argument does show that the universe was fine-tuned for life, it would not mean that it was fine-tuned by a maximally great being. My Argument for Atheism bypasses the Teleological Argument. Also, when I explain my alternative to Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo, I will explain why a universe with our exact physical constant combinations is 1/1, making improbability arguments trivial.C1C - UnexplainableEven if science cannot explain the universe, this does not mean that Pro's explanation is the best simply because we cannot think of anything else. My opponent is basically arguing that it is false the Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is not the best explanation, because we cannot think of another option. This is an appeal to ignorance [3].C3) DCEN is the Simplest ExplanationMy opponent cites Occam's Razor here. However, the simpler explanation is only really better if all other aspects between two options are equal. If one option has far more explanatory power and is the most likely option based on all available information, it should not be rejected simply because another hypothesis is simpler.Alternative Explanation to DCENOne could easily conceive of the idea that something immaterial can exist independently of our material and natural world that is not a personal mind. There could be "higher" supernatural laws which have no necessitating link to sentience once so ever. With this noted, I bring you this hypothesis:Timeless Immaterial PotentialTimeless Immaterial Potential would exist timelessly, causally prior to the production of the universe. It is immaterial, as the material world could not come from material. It is also potential, as it would itself be the necessary ingredient for the universe.The definition of Timeless Immaterial Potential is as follows:a) 'An inanimate mechanical necessary condition (lacking mechanical sufficient conditions), containing an inactivated "spontaneous transition" function with an inherit nature restricted to the actualization of symmetry breaking; from atemporal being to temporal being.'By "mechanical" I do not mean materially mechanical. I mean that which adheres to some foreign supernatural law of super-nature which is not sentient. Also, the lacking of mechanical sufficient conditions is critical to the essence of Timeless Immaterial Potential, or else the universe would have to be eternal (Note William Lane Craig's "Origin of a Temporal Effect from a Timeless Cause" dilemma [4]). This Timeless Immaterial Potential would "turn into" the universe at T=0, leaving the universe as all that exists. Keep in mind that the first frame is just illustrating a conceptual analysis. It would not actually be a white sphere in the middle of two grids, as material things which reflect light and entail location would not exist.Why is TIP superior to DCEN? (1) Less questions remain(2) The universe came from somethingGod could have not created us, so we are still left with questions. If Timeless Immaterial Potential is true, then our universe is a required function of such a cause. Also, since a universe coming from something without infinite regress, is more metaphysically feasible than something coming from nothing (even with an efficient cause), then it is vastly superior.Conclusion . Pro failed to support his position.. A divine creation cannot occur, because a divine God cannot exist (Argument for Atheism).. My explanation for the universe > DCEN.As it stands, the resolution has been negated Sources [1] http://arxiv.org...[2] Victor J. Stenger: The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, 2011[3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [4] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...