Existence Proves a Creator

My opponents statements from the previous round are italiczed.”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 continues his argument with himself about the meaning of the word nothing, even as he says that he is not engaged in a debate about the meaning of the word nothing, and even after I adopted his term ‘absolute lack of anything’ as my own for the purposes of clarifying a trivial and distracting issue. “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”My opponent has confused himself, which tends to happen when a person has endless debates about the meaning of the word ‘nothing’.My argument is clearly stated that ‘Creation proves a Creator’, nothing more nothing less. It is accurately represented by the title of this debate, ‘Existence proves a Creator’. The premise is that ‘nothing did exist’ except for God, and then God said ‘Let there be light…’ and everything went from there. (Wait for his internal debate about the many meanings of the word everything in round 4)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).Aristotle’s position is irrelevant? Again, no logical reasoning why Aristotle is irrelevant, just an unqualified statement by an unqualified person. He says it so it must be true. My opponent references Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow to support his convoluted 100 % theoretical position on about ‘gravity creating something from nothing’, but cannot respect Aristotle’s opinion on a very simple easily provable statement that there must be a Prime Mover.I can easily refute Hawkings. Where did the law of gravity come from? No matter how far back to the origin of the universe you go, even if all that existed was energy, and then the question would be, where did the energy come from? That’s where you find the Creator. The last question is an unanswerable one. Where did the Creator come from? 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).I accept my opponents apology for is mocking tone, and rude statements in the previous rounds.Here again my opponent adopts the tactics of a pseudo-intellectual, common among self-professed Satanists. Big words, serve as substitute for an actual coherent logical thought, and petty accusations substitute for a counter-argument.My conclusion1) My opponent failed to respond to a single one of my challenges to explain his unsupported statements. 2) My opponent has failed to present credentials that give him the authority to make very technical statements as I mentioned above.3) My opponent has failed to respond to my challenge to prove that he understands what ‘Quantum fluctuation’ is, or how it refutes the existence of a Creator. He used the ‘link’ as an argument for his side of the debate; it is the equivalent of tossing someone a magazine during a live debate and saying ‘Read the article on page 22, that’s what I think too.’ This is just another example of my opponent making unsupported statements. 4) My opponent has surrendered this debate by not engaging in it. 5) My opponent has surrendered this debate because he is unable to present a clear concise opinion in his own words, of any kind. I challenge my opponent to try again to present his opposing opinion in 500 words or less. Let them be his own words, supported by his own thoughts and opinions. If you can’t explain it in your own words then it is not your own thought. Simple claims require simple evidence. Something cannot come from nothing, therefore Creation proves a Creator exists.P.S. I ask that he please not continue his ramblings about the meaning of the word nothing, as I accepted his term as stated above.