A creator exists

Firstly, Pro "pointed out" my second contention INCORRECTLY. Please note the distinct difference between what Pro claims I stated and what I actually stated: Pro's claim: "You do in fact claim that absence of proof is proof of absence." My statement: "2) Absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence." Pro appears to be inaccurately conflating "proof" with "evidence," and that is simply not the case. Further, it does not contradict itself, nor have I. Pro went on to state: "...logic has no explanation for creation." This appears to be treating the CONCEPT of "logic" as a personage, and attempts to belittle it by stating that it cannot accomplish something. Logic is not an entity. It is not even anything tangible. It is a CONCEPT, and nothing else. There is no explanation for creation because, as yet, creation is not even a viable hypothesis, let alone an explanation or theory. Further, logic is not "built on ignorance," as my opponent claims, but that which removes ignorance. Its use is essential in extrapolating truth from observation and testing. Even the straw dummy created by my opponent is incapable of removing logic as a valuable tool in humanity's existence and advancement. The black holes and white holes were merely examples of things that cannot be disproved. On equal footing with my opponent's assertion that "TRUTH" is a creative deity, the white holes and black holes have more evidence behind them, and are more credible that my opponents blank, unfounded assertions about a made up entity called "TRUTH." No simulation is even inferred, let alone claimed. This was a disingenuous misstatement. Pro continues with yet another disingenuous misstatement: "As Con seems unable or unwilling to answer the question Why he doesn't believe TRUTH exists,..." I did answer the question, at the end of my last round: ""There is not one single bit of evidence to suggest that "TRUTH" is a cognizant entity, that the universe WAS created, or that "TRUTH" is connected -- IN ANY WAY -- with my existence, no matter how unlikely. Then, my opponent goes on to make statements on my behalf, and do so, INCORRECTLY: "I will answer it for him..." "Con also believes in free will. He believes mas is responsible for his own actions and will be judged accordingly. Judged not by God, because God does not exist, but rather judged by those who know him." First, Pro has no idea whether or not I believe in free will (I don't, not fully). While I do believe in free volition, an individual seldom controls which thought enters their brain, next, one is fully capable of choosing how to act upon said thought, if one chooses to act on it, AT ALL. Further, Pro is not in ANY position to try to answer ANYTHING on my behalf. It appears that Pro can barely keep track of his own beliefs, let alone sort out someone else's. While I do not believe in predestination, I have never stated that it was impossible. Further, I do not state that "TRUTH" does not exist on this basis. I state that my opponent's fantasy deity does not exist because not one shred of evidence has been presented that even infers that this is a person, let alone a triple-omni entity being fully responsible for any creation, or intervention in my or anyone else's life. I would caution Pro to make no further attempt to speak on my behalf, or put false words in my mouth. This disingenuous debate tactic is easily recognized and serves to discredit him, further than the illogical and unreasonable assertions he has put forth. Now, my opponent claims to put forth a creation theory (when it's not even an hypothesis, yet), with the following opening: "If time started with the big bang, no time existed before the Big Bang and therefore nothing could have caused the big bang." The truth of the matter is that NO ONE knows what existed prior to the BB, and no one has claimed to know. Pro is, once again, making statements on behalf of others that are simply not true. After this, my opponent launches into a pseudo-mathematical "explanation" of his incorrect conclusion: That time itself is slowing down... While humans have developed a system or MEANS of MARKING time, this system is valid ONLY within our solar system, and ONLY with respect to our planet. "Years" are subjective units, based on the time it takes for OUR planet to circumnavigate OUR star (the Sun). Months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, and seconds are simply subdivisions of OUR SUBJECTIVE time UNITS. Not one statement that my opponent made applies, as far as we know, to ANY other part of the universe. Time marches forward, irrespective of anyone's "perception." It does not speed up or slow, but passes from one instant to the next, in the same manner it has always done. Rate of expansion of the universe is, likewise, independent of my opponent's perception or perspective, as he explained it. What my opponent perceived as an increase in the passage of time is, in fact, and increase in velocity of masses. Velocity is a vector, consisting of two parts: Rate and Direction. This vector is represented by V=(d/t, (theta)), where V (velocity) is calculated by d (distance) divided by t (time), traveling in direction (theta). What my opponent has observed is that "...we would expect to see things travelling faster than they should." This means that the factor that has changed is not time slowing down, but the distance being covered in that SAME TIME is increasing. Nothing is exerting any "force on time." There is no "force" that has even been speculated that can impact or affect TIME. There ARE, however, forces that can be exerted on MATTER, to impact its velocity. It would appear that my opponent has misconstrued fundamental junior high physics, and supplanted his own "interpretation" in order to support a conclusion at which he seems to have arrived prior to investigating any data or evidence. Furthermore, this speculation does absolutely nothing to support the existence of any deity. Thus, I must conclude that my opponent is merely asserting something that he has not even thoroughly thought out, in an effort to put forth his beliefs in a "scientific manner," and has completely missed the mark. At this point, I consider the measure of arguing that there is a creator to have been defeated, at least from the perspective of my current opponent: 1) The assertion is that there is a creator. 2) No evidence, argument, or inductive reasoning has even been offered in support of "TRUTH." 3) All assertions that have been made by Pro have been easily refuted and dismissed. 4) There is still ZERO evidence of the existence of an entity "TRUTH" 5) There remains ZERO evidence put forth that the universe was created. 6) There has been zero correlation between the unproven creation and the speculated entity "TRUTH" There is no creator named "TRUTH."