Existence Proves a Creator

I apologize to my opponent for confusing him/her by committing a typographical error. The word I meant to use was ‘incomprehensible’, meaning ‘not understandable’ in the same way that the word ‘infinity’ or the ‘size of the universe’ is considered ‘incomprehensible’ by common people who do not insert the word ‘rather’ into to their writing.If I were feeling snarky as my opponent did, then I would point out that he/she should clarify the meaning of the word ‘labelled’, and ‘monochotomy’, a word that does not exist for a reason. I will not dwell upon my opponent’s typographical errors and creative license if he/she will not dwell upon mine. Now back to the main subject of debate: Existence proves a CreatorIt really is a simple concept. If something exists then something must have made it. I think that science fiction has confused people. I think science fiction television shows, movies, and books portray the universe in a way that appears real to many people. They forget that the key word in ‘science fiction’ is fiction. This leads to long complicated arguments about things that are very simple. If something exists then something made it. I think that ‘Creation proves a Creator’ is a very poetic even elegant statement, and my opponents version is clunky. It looks like he/she has also violated his own debate rules and is engaged in an argument over semantic s. My opponent also should refrain from using the term ‘of course’, and instead give his reasons for his assertions. My opponent makes statements without showing any logical progression of reasoning. He/she just makes unsupported statements. Using the terms ‘simply’ and ‘entirely’ are not substitutes for a reasoned argument. My opponent stated that I presupposed a creator by using the word creator, but then repeatedly presupposes his/her statements are common knowledge, which does not require support. I will help my opponent. How is it inaccurate to say that products of nature are equivalent to human creation?How is nature entirely different from that which is created by humans?My opponent may not have experience with how plants and animals are created but most people are. How plants and animals are created is not a mystery to most people. I refer my opponent to the term ‘procreation’ for clarification.My opponent again, makes a statement without supporting it. ‘Few scientists’ means some do. I will use my opponent’s technique of unsupported statements and say that the ones that ‘do’ are the really good ones. My opponent says ‘not to appeal to authority’, but then does which continues a familiar pattern. Here is another unsupported statement that I will give my opponent an opportunity to clarify.How is God as an explanation redundant? My opponent has no counter to my analogy, and so impersonates a 5th grade English teacher. He/She can do so because his/her writing is perfect. My opponent ignores the question because the answer is obvious to anyone who is mature and possesses commonsense, and because to answer the question would be to admit defeat in this debate.I will help my opponent. Which of my so-called sentences makes the most sense to you?So now, my opponent is going to debate the mean of the word ‘nothing’. My opponent continues to avoid the topic by engaging in debates over the meaning of common words.It is impossible for a human being to understand how ‘the absolute lack of anything’ can exist, which is my point, that the only logical way for ‘nothingness’ to exist is if something illogical (to humans) does exist. Who said anything about vacuums? Virtual particles, never heard of that, but if you say they pop in and out of vacuums, it must be true. I would ask my opponent to present his/her credentials that give him/her the authority to make such statements.If empty space contained energy then it would not be empty, so that would not be the nothing I am referring to. I did not remember making any statement about the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory has a common meaning. That all matter in the universe originated single point. Is my opponent unaware of the commonly known theory? My opponent, rather than addressing the Big Bang theory as it pertains to this debate, engages in a fruitless self-discussion about the ‘various sorts of nothing’. He/She ignores discussing the Big Bang theory in the context of this debate then he/she would have to admit that even if the Big Bang theory is proven as the origin of the universe, that there would still be no logical explanation for where the Big Bang came from, which leads to the logical conclusion that something illogical exists.The existence of Creator is by definition illogical, but the logical progression to prove he exists is not. I noticed that my opponent ignored the fact that Aristotle agreed with my statement, more accurately I was agreeing with his. It’s called the Prime Mover theory. I await my opponents discussion of the meaning of the term ‘primary’ and the many different types of moving. Opponent fails to state any equally plausible explanations.My opponent is engaging in a debate about the nature of the creator, which I already acknowledged was provable. I would ask that my opponent stay on topic. My opponent admits he/she is off topic. I could comment on the structure of this sentence but will not except to again say that using the terms ‘of course’ and ‘clearly’ is not a substitute for a reasoned argument.In this paragraph my opponent engages in a redundant mocking of my knowledge of the Big Bang theory, while doing nothing to demonstrate his/her knowledge of the subject. This subject, which I will redundantly state, has a common meaning. My opponent should familiarize himself/herself with it.My proof is a logical progression of thought to an illogical explanation. It is not possible to understand how a Creator can exist, but it is logical that one must exist because here we are. How can physical matter come into existence where no matter existed? Something coming from an ‘absolute lack of anything’ is not logically possible; therefore, the explanation must be illogical. Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. If my opponent cannot or will not answer the question I have posed above or present credentials, which give gravitas to the unsupported statements I pointed out, then I will assume he/she is unable to. I also would like to ask my opponent to refrain from engaging in snarky condescending remarks, which are common on the internet. I direct my opponent to http://en.wikipedia.org... to help him/her in improving his/her performance.My opponent left a Wikipedia about Quantum fluctuation. I challenge him in one sentence to show that he/she knows what it means, and then in another sentence explain how it refutes the existence of a creator. Leaving this link is just another in a pattern of unsupported statements he/she continues to inject into this debate.