Atheism Rejects Philosophy

Ok well my opponents last rebutttl was so riddled with flawed assumption and double standards this is going to take me some, time to debunk and point out them all. I'm going to attempt to go thru my opponents argument and point them out one by one. Pro"s flawed argument My original argument is only centered on Theism. It means that I am not yet endorsing any particular god/gods yet. In Round 2, I referenced the definition of deity in monotheistic religions.Therefore, Con is assuming the "Christian God" in my debate when in fact it could be either Judaism or Islam. ---My rebuttal to this is he didn't mention/refrence the Judaism/Islam Gods/books he refrenced the Christan God/books. If you want to argue genral theism then argue it! And I will aswell but don't push a certain one and not expect me to point out its many many flaws.. Plz try to hold ur self to the standerd you hold me. Like most theist and atheist arguments.. The theist decides to use a refrence from a certain dogma thay favor then decide to say the atheist is going off topic when he points out its flaws... let's quit the double standards? pros flawed argument->>>My suggestion to Con is to stick with the original argument as I myself does. My argument is that Theism is logical and Atheism is not due to the fact that everything in the physical universe has an origin. Hence, the universe per se has an origin for the paradigm to follow logically is that there is nothing that comes from nothing. ^----my/cons rebuttel like I said before quantum mechaics or more persicly quantum partials come from nothing!! Yes nothing!... To top it off everything in our known existence is made up of these quantum partials.. This fact debunks pros entire above stament. If you want a source Google quantm mechincs for beginners and read up a tad there's plenty of reputable sources like Science.org ect Pros argument (I trimmed the googled/Wikipedia parts feel free to read above for all of it>>>>>>Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing? My opponent agrees that Quantum Mechanics can produce a universe from nothing. I strongly agree to disagree. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, nothing in the Universe (i.e., matter or energy) can pop into existence from nothing Cons/my rebuttle^------Welcome to 2015 :D we have learned alot since 1905 infact the vary building blocks of our know unverse come from nothing thay come from nothing then disappear into nothing neat ehh? The biggest thing we've learned since then is how little we actuly know someone better arrest those quantum particals for braking the law haha, Can quantum mechanics produce a universe from nothing? I say it's highly possible way more proble then some all powerful God farting us into existence for his own amusement pros argument>>>>>>>The fact is, the idea that such an event could happen is pure speculation and conjecture. No such phenomenon""the conversion from energy to matter of an entire Universe""has ever been remotely observed. It is a desperate attempt to hold to naturalistic presuppositions, in spite of the evidence, when a supernatural option that is in keeping with the evidence is staring us in the face. Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger said, [T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void.... So what had to happen to start the universe was the formation of an empty bubble of highly curved space-time. How did this bubble form? What caused it? Not everything requires a cause. It could have just happened spontaneously as one of the many linear combinations of universes that has the quantum numbers of the void.... Much is still in the speculative stage, and I must admit that there are yetno empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin (1987, 7[3]:26-30, italics in orig., emp. added.). No evidence. No scientific observation. Just speculation. Ergo, Con's argument is refuted. In fact, my opponent's stance on the origin of the universe as "from nothing" is very well a nil notch thing. Energy could not have popped into existence without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. So in reality, when scientists argue that quantum mechanics creates something from nothing, they do not really mean "nothing." The problem of how everything got here is still present. cons/my argument^^^-----I find my opponents above staments and points, hilarious and laughable .. All orgin theroys have "no direct evidence proving them" this is not the same as no evidence , it impossible to scientifically observe the orgin of everything .. Speculations ? No it's called an educated hypothesis ,, I would point out you failed to prove gods are the orgin base on the standerds you just held me too and thay all fail the above test.. If your asking why we can't/haven't seen new universe's being created then you don't understand the quantum void/vacuum theory .. I'll explain it the best I can but suggest you research it. Quantum void theory states that the vacuum of space is eternal and infinite, this is not the same space we have outside our ozone, the space outside our ozone is universal space caused from when our unverse starterded (some call this the Big Bang) will refer to universal space as space from now on and orgin space as void.. let's continue so quantum void theory states that the void is endless and is and always was its just there something has to be and the void is it, we have no idea what's in this void truly but scientist,belive it has all the stuff needed for new universes to be born, the reason we are not witnessing this happening? For this I'll use an example picture big bowl with water in it , then imagine an explosion so strong it creates everything in the know universe ,what happened to the water? Well silly it got pushed out by the explosion. Why can't we see the void? Becuse we haven't devloped the tec to see outside our know universe yet! To add to the theory some scientist belive this is still happening out in the void causing us to have multiverse , it is also note worth that there is evidence that not only has our entire know universe exploded into being here,, but there is strong evidence of it imploding back on its self.. Which takes divine design theory and demolishes it (a theory my opponets been hinting at. I belive this answers all the silly poping from nothing rambling ,and violates no laws of physics , unlike theist who's holy text violets countless laws of physics Pros point/question>>>>>Bottom line: according to renowned atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, in order to create a Universe, "you need just three ingredients": matter, energy, and space ("Curiosity"," 2011). These three ingredients must exist in order to create a Universe, according to Hawking. So, the problem remains. Where did the ingredients for the Universe soup come from? There must be an ultimate Cause of the Universe. cons\my point<<<<>>>> Idk where everything came from for the cosmic soup,mabe it has always been inside the endless eternal void, Mabe in 2000 more years will have strong enough telescopes or space travel and witness universes being born. But just becuse I don't know something dosnt mean I have to fill the lack of me knowing something with an all powerful God who I can toss around to answer the things I don't know .. Ergo not knowing somthing dosnt mean Harry potter did it/made it happen. I wait for my opponets rebuttel :P