Existence Proves a Creator

Good luck to you. I look forward to the rest of our debate. ClarificationMy opponent has clarified that he is not arguing for any specific god or creator. He is only arguing that existence proves there must be some creator. He has defined this "Creator" as a "Being . . . who's[sic] existence is in comprehensible to the human mind" or as a "God. " This can be taken to mean an anthropomorphic deity that had the intention of creating and that has certain characteristics in common with humans, such as thoughts (I would presume; feel free to be more specific). I must ask though whether he means "incomprehensible" or "comprehensible" as that is rather important. IntroductionI will now begin my opening argument with a general overview of the case that I will be making in this debate. My opponent is of the opinion that existence proves a creator. I, however, believe that my opponent's arguments are essentially propping up a false dichotomy, or, more accurately, what might even be labelled a false "monochotomy," if there was such a term. He has presented questions that arise from a contemplation of existence such as "how did existence come to be? " and then claimed that the only possible explanation for existence is a creator/deity. I hold the position that in order for him to successfully defend this contention, he must provide evidence as to why this is the only possible explanation and absolutely must be correct. He has not done this so far. "Creation"The reason I swapped the word existence for creation is because "Creation proves a Creator" is a very poorly worded argument. It presupposes that there is a creator and essentially is a circular argument. There is a complete difference between cause and creation. The term creation implies that there is some intelligent being behind the result. In order for my opponent to support his assertions, he must prove that existence was, as he puts it "created," not simply caused. This is, of course, essentially synonymous with proving that there is a "Creator. " So far, he has not done this. He has stated that there are two possibilities: "1) Creation came from Nothing or 2) Creation came from Something. Number 2 is the most logical. " He asserts that this something must be a "Creator. " This is, of course, a false dichotomy. My opponent has failed to successfully bridge the gap from showing that there must be a cause of existence (which he has not even proven, but only stated that it is more logical) to showing that the cause necessarily must be a god. Furthermore, he even seemingly admits that it is possible (even if unlikely) that existence came from nothing (which could be defined in many ways). This admittance alone is enough to shut down his argument, and could certainly be considered concession. Rebuttal to False AnalogyMy opponent has stated the following: "Creation proves a Creator exists, just as a Ford pick up truck proves Ford Motor Company exists. If Creation existed without a Creator, then that would mean that a Ford Truck could exist without a place that built trucks. " This is a false analogy because it is simply inaccurate to say that products of nature are equivalent to human creations. Nature is entirely different from that which is created by humans. The only reason that we have to believe that trucks come from factories or paintings from painters or books from writers is because all of our experiences support this conclusion. We see people painting paintings and authors writing books. We know this is how such things are caused. We know that trucks are made in factories. However, we have no such experiences relating to plants or animals, cells or atoms (or any smaller units for that matter). It is therefore incorrect to draw a parallel between the two. Not to appeal to authority, but it should be noted that very few of the scientists and physicists who deal with the origin of the universe feel that a god is necessary to explain existence. God as an explanation is redundant, needlessly complex, and unsupported. "As an example, picture an empty field and poof a truck suddenly appears. Now picture a factory, the doors open and out comes a new truck. Which sentence makes the most sense? "I would point out that it is a stretch to call either a sentence. Neither is syntactically/grammatically sound. To be quite honest, the first might even make more sense as a sentence. On the Matter of NothingIt is confusing as to what my opponent means by nothing. If he means nothingness or "the absolute lack of absolutely anything" then I would point out that there is no evidence for the existence of that sort of nothing, and it seems that almost by definition it is impossible for such a nothing to exist. As for vacuums, I would point out to my opponent something certainly can come from that sort of nothing. Virtual particles spontaneously pop in and out of existence in vacuums [1]. Furthermore, empty space contains energy and certainly cannot be considered to be "the absolute lack of anything. " I feel that from what my opponent has said about the Big Bang, that he has a lack of understanding on the various sorts of nothing. Anyway, I suggest that he clarify what he means by "nothing" lest either of us be accused of equivocation. Alternate Explanations for the UniverseOne does not even have to believe that the universe came from "nothing" uncaused to reject the viewpoint that a god is the only possible explanation. Even if I grant my opponent his argument that there had to be some cause for the universe (which I will not), there are other equally plausible explanations apart from a god. It must be asked, what/who created or caused the Creator? Proposing a god as a cause does nothing (I hate all these different definitions of nothing). It is simply proposing an unknown to explain another unknown. Any unknown can be proposed. A god is only one possibility. By proposing a god, existence is explained, but no progress has been made because now the god is left unexplained. Infinite regression is not desirable. .. Proposing that the god is eternal is just as useless. It is just as likely that the universe, in some form, has always existed. This cuts out an entire "step. " If there had to be a first cause, a god is not even the most plausible explanation. A simpler first cause is more likely than a complex god. Many other explanations are thinkable that do not fit under the definition of "god. " Why then is a god the only possible explanation? The only conclusion that can be made is that a god is not the only possible explanation. Of course this is not an argument against the validity of my opponent's position, but if it was the case that a god is clearly the only explanation, would this viewpoint not be much more widespread and accepted? Furthermore, my opponent clearly has no understanding of the Big Bang. Even if we had no explanation for existence other than a guess that everything was caused by a random explosion, this explanation would be no less plausible than a creator. They would both be unexplained unknowns. However, there is actually evidence for the big bang and the expansion of the universe, while there is no such evidence for a creator. ConclusionIf my opponent is to fulfill his burden of proof and win this debate, he must show why any other conceivable explanation for existence cannot possibly be true. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...