A creator exists

All I can say is, "Wow." I don't remember the last time I saw such a convoluted string of disconnected thoughts, attempting to "prove" that which is disproved by the very logic used to try to support it... First, logic never determined that the earth was the center of the universe, that the stars and sun revolved around us, that the earth was flat, or that men could not fly... IGNORANCE did all that. It was logic that proved them all wrong. My opponent did get one thing right: science is not a tool of logic. Logic is the primary tool of science. It is a means of REASONING. Modern logic and science still follow, to a large degree, the Aristotelian "formal" logic, and this formal logic does, indeed, assume the truth of priori knowledge. However, priori knowledge is subject to change, should it be discovered that such knowledge was incorrect. It is the logical thing to do. It is also that which corrects subsequent logic and that which is derived by it. Next, we have an attempt to rebut the idea that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Unfortunately, my opponent went about this in a manner that was detrimental to his own argument. My opponent stated: "I can neither see, hear, smell, taste nor feel Cons brain. Apart from cutting open his head, that is. I'd rather not go that route. But by Cons logic, his brain does not exist." If that was the extent of things that were evidence of the existence of my brain, Pro would be absolutely correct. However, Pro goes on to offer the very evidence that disproves his own position: "Well anyone can see that he has one. Not through priori proof, but by observing him perform the actions requiring a brain. He thinks, therefore he has a brain." The observation of my performance of tasks/actions that require a brain comes from the PRIORI knowledge that a brain is a requirement for the performance of these tasks/actions. The observation of the tasks/actions IS THE EVIDENCE that I have a brain. Thus, there is no "absence of evidence," and my opponent's evaluation is incorrect. The first segment of this argument deals strictly with EMPIRICAL evidence. Since logic entails three types of reasoning (Inductive, Abductive, Deductive), any of the three, to varying degrees, are used in logical argumentation. This example fails, and the statement still stands: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. My opponent then follows with "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." I absolutely agree, which is why I have never stated the contrary. Evidence and proof are not interchangeable. Proof is much harder than conclusion. Conclusions can be wrong. That which is proven cannot be considered wrong. My opponent goes on to make the following statements: "I don't need priori proof of TRUTHS existence to prove TRUTH exists. Proof can be found by showing that the universe is not random, but designed." This is, indeed, an Herculean task. I agree that "truth" (the human concept) exists. To elevate the human concept of "truth" to the triple-omni PERSONAGE of "TRUTH," requires most astonishing evidence, indeed. Indeed, if the universe can be PROVED to have been created, that would support the belief that there is a creator. We shall see whether or not the universe can be PROVED to have been created, by my opponent. Thus far, I have seen not even evidence, let alone "proof." My opponent states: "I put forward the claim that TRUTH created it." At least my opponent admits that this is a claim (not proof). However, my opponent then goes on to state: "I have put forward a logical explanation for why the universe is here." I have not seen ANY explanation for why the universe is here; most especially a logical one. He makes the claim that nobody can prove it wrong, but there is no point in trying to disprove something that has not been put forth. I scoured the previous postings, looking for that which I might have overlooked, but I have found ZERO explanation for the existence of the universe. My opponent then asks why I am debating, if I don't NEED to know, in order to be happy... The answer is simple. I am here (on this site) combating the spread of destructive RELIGION. That does not presuppose that I am opposed to the existence of a creator. Until a creator is posited that is actually feasible, logical, and has SOME EVIDENCE for its existence, I must continue in my belief that none exists. My opponent's next move is a bit puzzling: "So I must either give my opinion why TRUTH does not want humanity to know why T does not exist or try another route." This sentence is self-contradictory. Something that does not exist cannot "want" ANYTHING. It is at this point that the quality of argument actually starts to decline... The example of probability has been attempted, before (most notably by William Lane Craig), and has failed due to logical fallacies and false premises. The number of spermatozoa produced in a single ejaculation is only indicative of the odds against a SPECIFIC spermatozoa FERTILIZING the egg. Pro asks if I feel lucky to be here. My answer is, "Yes." I do feel lucky. It could have been an entirely different person, or none, at all. This, however, in NO WAY offers any evidence that there is a creator, and is so far down the chain of the evolutionary progression that it is only indicative of the luck that I am here, not the human species... How does this infer a creator? No correlation is made. How does this contribute to the creation of the universe? No correlation is made. And I didn't even bother with my opponent's "math" in calculating the odds, given that my father MEETING and MARRYING my mother was not even considered among the odds, let alone the odds, had my mother met someone else... Now, we have arrived at my favorite part of the post! My opponent states: "I don't blame you for it. Our whole life we are taught that we are sinners. That God is a uncaring master. You just don't realise it. Its done subliminally. Its no coincidence that God spelt backwards is dog. In our perception the role is reversed. We become the dogs and God the master." What my opponent fails to realize is that a play on words is evidence of NOTHING. Further, this example works ONLY in English. What can my opponent deduce from the Spanish version of "DIOS" (god) and "PERRO" (dog)? What is the "subliminal" Why did Pro assume that I feel guilty about sex? I don't. I thoroughly enjoy sex. My wife is an exceptional lover, and every moment with her, in that capacity is bliss. With this, my opponent challenges me with the following: "There is no proof TRUTH doesn't exist. Without TRUTH we have no explanation why we are here. Without TRUTH you have a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of never being born. Give me 1 logical reason I should not believe TRUTH exists." There is also no proof that "Jehova" doesn't exist. There's also no proof that Allah doesn't exist. There is also no proof that Zeus doesn't exist; or Jupiter or Athena or Odin or Loki or Thor or... . The one logical reason I can give Pro for disbelieving the PERSONAGE of "TRUTH" as the creator of the universe is very simple: There is not one single bit of evidence to suggest that "TRUTH" is a cognizant entity, that the universe WAS created, or that "TRUTH" is connected -- IN ANY WAY -- with my existence, no matter how unlikely. Once again, the best argument my opponent can muster is, "You can't disprove it!" Here is a ridiculously short list of things that cannot be disproved, all of which are far more feasible/viable than the volitional act of creation, via "TRUTH": Universe was created by the collision of two super massive black holes. Universe was created by the collision of two super massive white holes. Universe was created by the collision of one super massive black hole and one super massive white hole. Universe was created by a middle school being from the fifth dimension as a science project. "TRUTH" = No