Resolved: god Probably exists

From what I can see my opponent uses the normal objections to P1, and then a quite interesting starter.P1) Everything has a causeWe're not concerned with ex-nhilo or ex-materia. This objection is irrelevant, a red herring, and an imagined fallacy by my opponent. On the other hand, it is inexplicible how everything can come from nothing, nothing at all. Nothing cannot create nothing. Nothing is a non intellegent force, and is indeed just a void. The argunment here is more of a logical one, as it is impossible for anything to come from nothing. Nothing just cannot create something. What my opponent is asserting is just that; things coming into the universe uncaused (that is the way to sum it all up). But this neither makes sense nor has any evidence to back it up. After all, do you see animals spawnign because of nothing (do nto mention minecraft). Why would only the universe be able to spawn alone? What scientific or philosophic law does the universe jump over to come out of nothing? How can nothing create something?! Keep in mind that there is LITERALLY no property ab is out nothing that would discriminate against various types of somethings, ex-materia or whatever.Further, we do not know this as much intuitivley (though that is a factor) so much deductive reasoning. My opponent is trying to argue that ex nihilo nihil fit is not actually true. This is a bare assertion and is not actually true. Further my opponent comits a fallacy himself, ironically. He states intuition CAN be faulty, and makes it seem it is absolute. This is appeal to probability where saying a probable problem is absolute. And my opponents argunment shows I am comitting an informal fallacy too, as something not absolute means it is sometimes not a fallacy. So this is a maybe situation.Quantum fluctuations?Lack of eternal cause is not lack of internal cause. Further my opponent is mainly arguing virtual particles and fluctuations are uncaused, thats the sum of it all. It is important to note my opponent is arguing we have found no cause therefore it is uncaused (that makes no sense by the way). We have to remember science is provisional. What may seem to be an uncaused event is more likely something not obsoerved. We should be therefore not be hasty to say it is "not caused". Uncaused events may be the result of sub-atomic particles. It is important to note the randomness of sub atomic particles. This is not found through mere observation of the large event itself. If the randomness is occuring its at the sub atomic level. So the un observed cause may be something we cannot see [1]. As notes: "the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known"[2]. As stated above, this is irrelevant and a red herring as they are uncertian, not uncaused. Uncertianty does not equal uncaused. My opponent cites many examples of people saying it is uncaused. But these people do nto understand the theory. I cited one of the founders of the theory, he merely stated its cause is unknown, NOT that it was uncaused. Again, uncertianty does not equivocate any type of uncaused. This is a mere misinterpretation of the theory.What created god?This is the most common objection. If everything needs a god then what created him etc. If Y created X, and everything needs a cause, then Y needs a cause. This is false, god needen't be created. God was the creator of time. But god lives in a timeless eternity. "God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God's plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific)"[3]."God, though, unlike the universe, did not begin to exist. God is eternal. He exists outside of time, and has neither beginning nor end. The theist can therefore admit that uncaused existence is possible in the case of God, without being forced to admit that uncaused existence is possible in the case of the universe. God and the universe are two entirely different sorts of thing."[1]P2) The universe began to existAlright.CONCLUSION:My opponent will not negate P2, and this is understandible. But he knows all he needs to do is negate 1 to win the debate. He made a broad side attack, though much of it was futile. All of his argunments where refuted, debunked, or irrelevant. Meaning whilst P2 stands, P1 has been defended. Point being I have proven the universe needs a cause: god. Vote Pro.Sources:[1] http://www.existence-of-god.com...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.godandscience.org...