A creator of the universe exists.

Now, again, just because I didn't have a title saying "my case"; doesn't mean I haven't offered my argumentation. I have proven, scientifically, that the universe could have begun on its own accord, effectively making a creator unnecessary. A creator which needs not create anything is a very illogical idea, and not fitting to serve as an explanation. An idea which cannot be proven and is, in the end, unnecessary, is also highly illogical and improbable. As long as there is no evidence as to the probability of the existence of a creator, proving that he is unnecessary is enough. On one side we have laws which explain the creation of the universe, laws we can observe, understand, and falsify scientifically; while on the other side we have an unproven, unnecessary theory of a creator. It is obvious which, and why, serves as an explanation. Now, onto my final rebuttal. RUSSELL'S TEAPOTMy opponent says this is the "core of my case", and a "misleading analogy", so he deemed fit to attempt to refute it. First, I must say that Russell's teapot served to prove that showing how and why a creator is unnecessary is enough, as long as there is no observable proof as to his existence. If that weren't the case, I might as well use the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an explanation, or maybe the Invisible Pink Unicorn; and then stipulate that proving them unnecessary isn't enough - you have to show they don't exist. But you can't do that, can you? That's because you first need proof to be able to offer a rebuttal whatsoever. ARGUMENT FROM REASONMy opponent suggests that my refutation of this argument is false, because he believes true belief isn't necessary as long as evolution increaes survivability. He also accuses me of "simply asserting" that evolution and true belief are connected. First, let us take the analogy with water my opponent used. We don't even have to use a human, let it rather be a monkey; a creature which has a primitive sort of rational thought, as well as instincts. Its animalistic instincts force it to go look for water when it is thirsty. Should it not find water in a certain place, say place X, it will now know, believe, that the water isn't there; and due to the validation of that belief, it will no longer go to place X to look for water. Belief and rational thought are intertwined - they are both neurophysical processes. The example with the monkey simply describes the chain of evolution - the fact that a monkey can use rational thought to an extent as well as instincts puts it high on said chain. Humans are, of course, on the very top, due to them beling able to think and validate claims completely rationally. This leads us to the conclusion that beings that are higher on the chain of evolution have more developed thought processes; and those with rational thought are the highest - evolution's survival of the fittest favors rational thought. Finally, I didn't "simply assert" the connection - I've already elaborated on it in round three. In fact, the only fallacy of assertion is committed in the very AfR, whose only disproval of said connection is "there is no reason", without any evidence or arguments whatsoever. Thus, Occam's razor favors the con side. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTTo begin with, my argument about the weak nuclear force refers to the present universe, while astrophysicist Fred Adams' claim refers to the universe in general. I should have indeed been more precise, but I do not believe this will be very important to the outcome of this debate. As for the constants - they were my opponent's example; it's up to him to know what he applied them to. Now, again, a smaller likelihood does not indicate impossibility. It is perfectly possible that, even granting fine tuning, the universe is suited for life. We live in a small corner of space, so small compared to the rest. Even in comparison to the Milky Way, the odds of life forming were 0.000000000058824 (1/17x10^9). Yet Earth defies the odds. Evolution defies the odds. I also didn't see the need to refute Paley's watch per se, as long as I refute the teleological argument, but since my opponent requests it - no, we do not assume a watch on a beach is made by chance. Yes, it was designed by humans. However, this does not imply design on the cosmological scale, a non sequitur once again. The analogy cannot even be applied to a cosmological scale. This argument is a non sequitur [1]. It doesn't imply a designer - indeed, it doesn't even imply design. Furthermore, placing the creator outside the space-time continuum is removing criteria of proof. Hey, God is outside of time. Hey, he's outside of space. These arguments are simply retreats onto other criteria - the problem is, no proof is offered upon any of these criteria. As for fine-tuning, the universe is not perfectly tuned. Nearly the whole observable universe is deadly to life, some of its constants could be subject to change, and life developed through chance. These are not the characteristics of a fine-tuned universe designed for life. However, even granting the fine-tuning, the argument is still a non sequitur. THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTTo begin with, let's deal with infinity for the final time. Infinity can, and will, exist in nature. The universe could perfectly well expand infinitely in an indefinite amount of time, granted there were no thermodynamic death. Furthermore, according to all calculations, the Big Bang singularity existed temporally infinitely. Infinity can exist, and is applicable to observation. However, it cannot exist quantitatively. Infinite time cannot be measured. Next, of course I am not refuting that the universe began to exist - if it hadn't I wouldn't be here. Refuting premise 2 is refuting one's own existence; it's absurd to even mention this. As for virtual particles - uncertainty in velocity and positin on quantum level does, indeed, mathematically lead to uncertainty in energy. That uncertainty is manifested in the creation of virtual particles in accordance with Heisenberg's principle. The quantum vacuum can have its positive energy of matter increased along with its negative energy of gravity [2]. These two render each other null - they do not break the law of conservation of energy. Our universe allows creation ex nihilo. In the quantum vacuum, that creation was observed in accordance with all known principles - there is no cause, or more important, no necessary cause for virtual particles. Due to the nature of quantum events, which Taner Edis explained (a quote was offered), virtual particles can, and will, materialize from nothing. Also, the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem focuses on inflation between 10^-36 and 10^-33 (or ^-32) seconds after the Big Bang. It doesn't refute the Big Bang, or the coming of our universe into existence. [3]This is no longer a matter of interpretation - all the laws of quantum physics and mechanics point to this conclusion, and it was accepted by the modern scientific community, as well as many of the world's leading physicists, such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Feynman* - the greatest modern minds. (*Richard Feynman is deceased, if one is to consider this information relevant [4])The conclusion about virtual particles is no longer considered a mater of interpretation; rather an accepted fact. The first premise of the KCA fails. Creation ex nihilo is possible, and I've shown throughout this debate that not only virtual particles, but our universe as well, can come ex nihilo. Finally, again - a lower likelihood doesn't imply impossibilty. The KCA doesn't imply a creator, or refute my arguments by stating that "it is more probable that everything has a cause". More probable, maybe, but definitely not true in all cases. To conclude, I've proven the lack of need for a creator, and refuted arguments against.