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

Thank you Con. Con ask for conduct points to be deducted but I was not claiming he did not give us a alternate theory, I was speaking in a future tense, I had not gotten to it yet. I do approve of Cons theory and think it shows my theory as the best explanation and I will explain why. Con conceded the universe had a beginning and accepted that the universe had some sort of a cause. The universe began to exist, but came from something instead of nothing. We both agree there is no infinite regress but I hold there is temporal regress. Temporal regress- Temporal finitism is the idea that time is finite. I contend that time and regress are finite. . http://en.wikipedia.org... C1) Theistic Hypothesis This Hypothesis as sourced is a long existing hypothesis supported by the principles I posted. I did not make up this hypothesis if that is what my opponent thinks. If Con does not address this it stands. Con also ignores the principle that when one cannot explain the world with natural means then one has right to explain it philosophically. Plantinga's transworld depravity thesis- Within this system, as long as one person makes a wrong decision the problem of evil will exist and the depravity caused will alienate that person from God’s original plan and lead to a multiplication of wrong actions. This is a exentsion argument on moral values. The optimality condition- This condition is a generalization of convexity, or positive curvature, to higher dimensions. This condition plays into why we have a lower positive influence in our dimensions and tries to explain why we have less optimal value or lower-performance. The Copernican principle- This principle says that the earth is nottimal position to know the origin of the universe because we are limited. This helps me because Con is limited to human knowledge and I give that knowledge to God knowing I cannot know. C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine Creation Argument for Atheism My opponent does a lot of philosophical work in this section but ignores possibilities as God may have created greater beings and because they are greater they are not contained in our physical world but beyond it. Pro also ignores reasoning why humans are here to begin with, which will involve theistic teachings. Humans rule the earth because of intellect and Con has not shown we are not the greatest possible species for the conditions the earth was created for. Con ignores that for perfection to exist there must also exist imperfection otherwise perfection has no comparison. There can be no opposites unless both propositions are available. In perfect love there must exist free-will and choice to be imperfect. This leads into my main point this round, mental thought. Defense of the Cosmological argument Conceded. This argument is part of theistic hypothesis. C1B - The Teleological Argument Con assumes he shows a maximally great being does not exist but his theory has holes and if it does then he has conceded this point. This argument is part of theistic hypothesis. C1C - Unexplainable Conceded that both theories are possible. C3) DCEN is the Simplest Explanation I concede both myself and Con have a valid theory to date. What we are left with is which theory offers the best explanation from the evidence available both scientific and philosophical. Timeless Immaterial Potential "Ex nihilo" means "out of nothing" Notice the resolution says, Divine Ex Nihilo. This means that nothing came from a divine source which is something. This means there was a divine source and time, space, and matter came from that source when it had previously only been the divine source in existence. Con cannot object with his own resolution. "You are confusing Creatio Ex Nihilo with Creatio Ex Deo" No, I am arguing DCEN. I concede con has provided a reasonable theory but one point is lacking substance, intelligence. Teleological Add-on I quote my opponent: "I mean that which adheres to some foreign supernatural law of super-nature which is not sentient. " "If Timeless Immaterial Potential is true, then our universe is a required function of such a cause. " Con has produced a theory exactly like Divine Creatio but his theory has no brain, no mind, no intelligence. His theory supposedly gave us genetic moral values and duties or we simply have lack for them all together. His theory gives no explanation for intelligence and separate value from natural animal instinct. This is why my opponent's argument fails. He claims there is no need for sentient intelligence but we have that intelligence, he thinks it came about on its own. This is highly improbable considering the amount species that have been on this planet and none have had the superior intellect we posses. So, I give you the premise of the mind. The mind Ok, we both have have shown there exists an uncaused, immaterial, spaceless, infinitely powerful cause of the universe. I contend this cause has a mind. Con just offers us the same old data which we can see and by the teleological argument shows the appearance of design and intelligence in our creation. Saying the cause of the universe is impersonal is to offer no explanation at all and like pointing to robotic entities. Considering the evident appearance of intelligent order, taking Cons hypothesis is like saying the fossils of dinosaurs do not lead to dinosaurs having lived on earth. It is like saying the Sphinx in Egypt naturally formed from sand and had no human aide. Even science has projected the idea that our universe is like a giant brain. According to a study published in Nature's Scientific Reports, the universe may be growing in the same way as a giant brain. . http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... In many philosophies, the conscious mind is considered to be a separate entity, existing in a parallel realm not described by physical law. . http://en.wikipedia.org... As shown in this debate only two things fit this description: Timeless Immaterial Potential(with no thought) or an unembodied mind. Timeless Immaterial Potential cannot cause definition, it does not have any care or relations for creation. Human kind is acquainted with the idea of embodied minds as Gods. If humans are composed of mind and body, then the mind is distinct from the body. There may be minds that are never conjoined to bodies. I have given multiple premises for why the universe was created and probably is personal. . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...... Moral values This argument is part of the theistic hypothesis. There must also be a perfection or goodness value. We rank things as more or less good or valuable. We use this ranking to determine what is right and wrong there must be a standard to make such a standard possible, for a ranked hierarchy there exist the highest standard. Such a standard or thought is a characterization of God. There is a difference between morals independent of people’s opinion and morals dependent on people’s opinions. God is essentially the natural moral standard determining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect in turn his moral nature. Therefore, they are not arbitrary. . http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com... Where do our senses come from? Thinking our moral experience as an experience of our five senses helps to show the objectivity of morality. Everyone shares the five senses experience, just as everyone shares the moral experience. . http://reformedseth.blogspot.com... Summation I explained my theory and have given it to reasonable cause why people believe in DCEH as opposed to human knowledge. Con wants us to ignore DCEN explanation for our universe. I don’t know of any competing explanation better than the hypothesis of a personal Divine Creator. Cons theory lacks human substance. TY Con and the readers.