The Christian Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo is not supported by the KCA.

My opponent has attempted to distract some of you by attaching attributes to his particular brand of a God, such as transcendence, and omnipotence. He has no better shifted the burden of proof in those claims then he has with the original. I have shown that causation requires a material cause of some sort, and that any argument showing that something must be caused, does little to support a supposed phenomena of the kind Con is asserting. He would like you to believe that his God is not subject to laws of logic, nor is God limited by any means. It makes sense to Con that the KCA supports his beliefs because he wants them to be true. While this may be a good enough reason for him to defend such an opinion, his arguments show that it's not a reasonable one to be adopted by anyone else. The Christian Doctrine of Creation from Nothing says there was God, and then at some point, God created everything, from Nothing. Con says- "Nothingness contains no potential, so that is why I stated that the universe was created from God" What Con says is something quite different than what he has set out to defend. He has practically handed over the debate, and is now defending a different theory all together! Read below with careful consideration to the bold. (In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God). REF:http://en.wikipedia.org...The topic of the debate was about what God created the universe from. Con is trying to dodge the question, but rather than concede, Con has resorted actually began making an argument for a kind of Pantheism, or a God is the universe theory. This is something all together different from Christian Doctrine, and especially so for the competing theory of Creatio Ex Nihilo. Con believes that his God must have created matter, so he thinks it must be true that his God is immaterial. Con says that the space-time continuum must like-wise have a pre-existing cause. "The universe does not require a material cause. In fact, the space-time continuum and all included within it cannot have a material cause, but require a cause outside. Something cannot create itself because it does not yet exist." -ConCon ignores that change is contengent upon time. Will you? Con posits that his creator must have existed before time (if this is even a sensical statement). If we grant this and other purely speculative remarks made by Con, we arre confronted with yet another obvious objection. If Con's creator existed before time.Then Con's creator could not be affected by time before it was created.Then Con's creator could also not be affected by change, as it is a product of a not yet existing time.However, this acknowledges a point during which time had not yet been created, and then alludes to a point where God created it. This cannot be true according to Con's logic. You see why? It's simple:If God changed his mind (even from one state of events with no universe, into a new state in which He willed it into existence)Then we've established an instance change affecting God before time was created (before time sounds so absurd). Unless you accept question-begging assertions as acceptable evidence for such causation, then its clear that Con has not shifted his burden of proof. So far, nothing provided by Con, has been a satisfying resolution for the crippling objections I have made to his claims. One last thought before you vote:The KCA shows causation of the universe is reasonable.We know that causation requires a causer, an object or entity to act upon, and an effect (efficient, material, and formal causes). Creation Ex Nihilo asserts that the universe was created without one of those steps in the causation process. Has Con shown that KCA makes such a thing more believable? The answer is NO. Please vote for me!