A creator of the universe exists.

My opponent has yet to post a case, refuting my arguments do not fulfill the BOP that he was given in the rules and confirmed in PM. While my opponents refutations are obviously false, it doesn't matter because my opponent has failed to justify his position. He must either offer arguments for the probability of atheism or lose this debate. Remember voters unnecessary doesn't equal contradiction. AfR"Within me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"-Charles DarwinThere is a problem with my opponents assertion that intentionality is simply the result of millions of years of blind processes. One he needs to argue why its not only possible but likely, and furthermore, if it is possible it's unlikely. Why one might ask? It is called the Evolutionary argument against Naturalism which shows that a combination of evolution and naturalism don't lead to rational thought formation. The formal form of the argument appears thus:P(R/N&E)R is the proposition that are cognitive faculties are reliable, N and E stand for the conjunction of naturalism and evolution. This argument shows that naturalism and evolution in conjunction is self-referencely incoherent. Or at least incoherent to saying that to say that your belief is justified in believing said proposition. You see Naturalism isn't aimed toward really anything. It isn't interested in anything, while evolution is only interested in survival enhancing traits. These together do not entail the rationality of our cognitive faculties.The best way out of this is to say that survival enhancing traits have some kind of connection with truth however there is absolutely no evidence for this, because for every example that we pose I can pose a equally effective behavior that does the same thing. There is no particular reason to see a snake as the dangerous creature rather than another type of lizard. There is no particular reason to think that the best way to pet a tiger is to run away as long as it produces behavior that leads to better survivability capabilities.Now my opponent misunderstands what follows from this argument. It follows that Naturalism and physicalism is false. Oakum's razor tells us that we should favor the explanation that has the least number of assumptions in it as long as they have equal explanation power. If Dualism is true and Physicalism and Naturalism is false this leads to the conclusion that there are substances out there that are mutually exclusive of physical matter and energy, so I would argue this supports a theistic worldview far more than a atheistic worldview. Especially since the evolutionary argument shows that it couldn't have simply evolved. My opponent must show how consciousness either evolved or fall to Oakum and lose this debate.Teleological ArgumentI would like to address my opponent first on the constants. For the weak nuclear force, if there was none too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible. If the gravitional constant was lesser than stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form. If the electromagnetic constant was greater than chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission. My opponent simply doesn't understand the consequences of trying to edit these forces. There are at least 37 constants that are consistent with the laws of nature for a variety of values that if edited slightly could result in the impossibility of life.Next my opponent seems to critique the creator, I would like to point out three things about my opponents chance argument. One even if my opponent were correct this simply doesn't follow. My opponent would have to why if the argument is correct there is some contradiction between a large number of worlds with one that has life on it and there is simply no reason to suggest this by chance or incompatible at all. And the another problem with my opponents objections is efficiency is only a problem for someone with limited time or limited resources in which God has neither therefore the argument doesn't follow. The last problem with this objection is that it simply shows the typical probability of a universe fine-tuned for life having a life-supporting system so it really just adds to the argument. The 37 constants I mentioned are finely tuned for life, and have a variety of values which are consistent that do not support life. Therefore given all the problems with my opponents reasoning the argument stands unscathed.My opponent has not refuted Paley's watch therefore my opponent has not seen why I consider a creator being the correct answer but he blatantly contradicts himself when he says a creator isn't falsifiable. The reason why is because he has tried to falsify the creator through apparent non-necessity in the last paragraph(even though this doesn't prove anything), so my opponent has simply ignored the connection between design and designer and furthermore, doesn't understand the presupposition he must take in order to make his argument work. My opponent has not refuted this argument therefore it stands.The KCAMy opponent basically attacks both premises and has made incredible assumptions to do so. My opponent takes possible infinites and equivocates them with actual infinites. What I am saying is that no set of infinite anything can exist. For example, a infinite amount of time cannot exist because that would be a infinite set of years(or lightyears if you prefer). Of course its used for convenience in mathematics, but if we calculated out the equations they simply do not end therefore we use symbol(infinity) to represent the existence of continuous cycle of something that cannot be counted because immediately afterward you have a new number in which to count.I have three refutation of the critique of the first premise. My opponent principle of uncertainty has nothing to do with quantum vacuums or virtual particles, as my opponents source says that the principle is "any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle" this has nothing to do with the appearance of virtual particles.My next refutation is that the appearance of virtual particles from nothing depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics, the only time when this is shown to be true is if we assume a indeterministic model such as Copenhagen however if we choose a De Broglie–Bohm or some other deterministic model of quantum mechanics than the appearance of virtual particles are in principle explainable. Furthermore, epistemic indeterminacy with ontological indeterminacy are very different things. Just because science cannot show a clear causation doesn't mean that the event is uncaused.My opponent is mistaken with the his interpretation of a quantum vacuum. A quantum vacuum isn't nothing, its a sea of fluctuating energy. Its rich physical reality in which is governed by physical laws. Bernulf Kanitscheider emphasizes that in so-called quantum creation events we're dealing with "a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic, it includes that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process". But even granting my opponents objection to the first premise we simply cast the argument in inductive form and the KCA is unfazed. We simply say its more likely that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Sources in the comments,Thank you to my opponent. Vote Pro. BOP fulfilled.