A creator of the universe exists.

First, however, I must address the matter of me supposedly "not posting" a case. Now, just because I don't have a huge title in bold capital letters saying "MY CASE", doesn't mean I haven't posted any argumentation whatsoever. As far as I recall, I explained why we know the Big Bang occured and how it occured; as well as how we know our universe is flat and allows a creation ex nihilo. This also touches the problem of the unfalsifiability of a creator, which my opponent calls a contradiction. In a moment when we know that the Big Bang indeed happened, as well as its cause, we need only prove that our universe allows creation ex nihilo to complete the theory and stipulate that it materialized from the Big Bang singularity, ex nihilo, by means of a quantum fluctuation - this is where a creator becomes unnecessary. There is no need for a creator to create anything because we know it is possible and perfectly likely for the universe to create itself, on its own accord. There is no logical reason for a creator to exist - it would indeed be a "creator" whose creation is unnecessry, making such a creator almost definitely inexistent. This is what science can prove, and this is what I've proven. However, science cannot definitely prove there is no creator. I shall paraphrase Russell's teapot - if I were to assert that an invisible magical teapot is, say, orbiting the Sun, undetectable to our senses and machinery; I have made myself impossible to prove wrong. This is a fallacy called reductio ad ignorandum. [1] That is why firm evidence as to the extence of a creator must be given. Should it not be given, proving a creator to be absolutely unnecessary is enough. ARGUMENT FROM REASONMy opponent attacks my refutation by using the Evolutionary argument against naturalism, so I shall deal with it promptly. He attempts to prove that due to the fact that naturalism claims there is no purpose in nature, and evolution is based on enhancing survival traits; their conjunction is incoherent. This argument states tha there is no connection between survival traits and belief/rational thought. As I've already pointed out, what naturalism believes is that there is no true purpose in nature and life, but this has nothing to do with the existence of rational thought - this only means that there is no "higher meaning" in our existence or that of the laws of nature. Furthermore, what this argument fails to address is that, as long as there exist conceptual links between belief and behavior, to quote Stephen Law: "Natural selection will favour true belief. "Why is this? This is because such conceptual links do exist. Belief and behavior are intricately intertwined. The greatest achievments of the human race were made by asserting a belief, and then behaving accordingly to validate said belief. The fact that the human race is capable of fully rational thought,while other species are not, represents a development in accordance with the chain of natural selection. All species have evolved to survive. However, some are incredibly simple and surviv with no rationality, thought, or instinct; while some have developed extremely intricate systems of survival - like humans. This argument hasn't proven the correlation between evolution and rational thought to be wrong, nor has it proven there exist no links between behaviour and belief. It only states, I quote: "There is no reason. .. ". This remains a fallacy of bare assertion. [2] There is no "assumption" as to these conceptual links - Occam's razor favors the con side. THE TELEOLOGICALARGUMENTFirst, I must address the problem of fine-tuning. If we were to remove the weak nuclear force today, life could exist. Stephen Hawking has argued this to be true as well. I wasn't talking about the early universe. Furthermore, concerning the gravitational force, I will quote astrophysicist Fred Adams: "You can change alpha or the gravitational constant by a factor of 100 and stars still form. " [3]Now, my opponent states that there is no reason to suggest life appeared by chance. The Earth itself formed through accretion from the Solar nebula [4], while life was a result of many chemical syntheses that just as well might not have happened. We are talking about a universe with 17x10^9 planets in a single galaxy - with only one planet having life, and only by chance. This doesn't indicate a "fine-tuned universe". Also, as for the statement that a creator has neither "limited time nor limited resources" - not only is this again unfalsifiable and simply removing criteria of proof, but it would also either indicate a creator has infinite time (which my opponent claims to be impossible), or he is outside of time, which is a fallacy of removing criteria of proof. I have already addressed the issue of the statement about a creator being unfalsifiable, so I shall conclude. Even granted fine-tuning is true, this doesn't prove a creator. Low probability of fine-tuning would not mean its impossibility without a creator; and without proof that this implies a creator, the argument is a non sequitor and bare assertion. There is no connection between design and designer here, because there is no evidence for design in the first place. To state it cannot be proven otherwise would be a reductio ad ignorandum. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTI must again address infinity. We cannot reduce infinity to a "set" of anything - it would absurd and unreasonable to attempt to count infinity. However, it exists. For example, our universe has an infinite capacity of volume. This indicates its ability to expand infinitely given the non-appearance of thermodynamic death. Furthermore, infinite potential mass infinitely slows time - this is what happened in the singularity. Infinity is a concept used most logically in accordance to the laws of physics, only not quantitatively (reduced to a number). The only mistake here is the fact that my opponent is literally trying to "count" infinity. As for the refutations of my criticisms of the first premise:a) This is what happens when one only reads the definition. Heisenberg's principle is most intricately connected to the creation of virtual particles. Due to the fact that Heisenberg's principle implies an uncertainty in the velocity and location of a particle, it follows that there is always an uncertainty in energy in even the purest of vacuums. [5] This uncertainty is manifested in virtual particles appearing in particle/antiparticle pairs. To adhere to the necessity of restoring energy to its previous state, these particles are subsequently annihilated. However, they appear in pure vacuums, which can contain no cause for their materialization. Furthermore, our universe allows ex nihilo creation perfectly well, which implies that virtual particles materialize ex nihilo according to all principles of quantum mechanics, and this is taken as a well accepted fact. b) I do not recall referring to the quantum vacuum as "nothing". There can, indeed, be no pure void, no true "nothing". However, the quantum vacuum is matterless, containing only fluctuating energy which is a consequence, NOT a cause, of the materialization of virtual particles. There doesn't have to be a certain energy causing that materialization - the net energy of the universe is equal to zero. To quote Stephen Hawking: "That only raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the energy of the universe is exactly zero. [6]The "sea of fluctuating energy" inside the quantum vacuum is a consequence of virtual particles. Finally, as for the statement that we shall simply say that what is more likely will happen - this proves nothing. There have been hundreds of thousands of examples where an event that was less likely happened. The statement is wrong and irrelevant. Sources in comments. Back to pro.