There is a God who created the universe

"He fails to understand that by challenging his negations I can win this debate. He somehow thinks that simply because he negated them means that his negations are set in stone and cannot be disproved. " I think my opponent is the one failing to understand -- I never, ever, not even once said nor implied that negations are "set in stone" -- he's using another straw man argument. What I said was that the arguments he did being up were recycled; they're the same ideas and arguments he used before in a different form, and, considering that I had already debunked those ideas, it was inherently useless for my opponent to bring them up again. If they didn't work the first time, then they weren't gonna work the second time. And, well, they didn't. "Going on this premises (which is what I can assume CON believes) then this energy has always existed, but one day for some unapparent reason decided to change forms (the big bang). Well, if only the energy itself was around, what caused it to change forms? The only logical answer I can think of is: A God. " God? Logical? A being that's logically contradictory is hardly a reasonable explanation for anything. Also, just because my opponent can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one. He's hardly qualified in any area of science, so I wouldn't expect him to be able to think one up. However, the best explanation seems to be that a phase transition occurred, which consequently resulted in inflation. That's irrelevant, though, because if the universe's constituency was around, then there wasn't a creator; what caused the universe to expand doesn't matter in this debate, which is, as the title states: "There is a God who created the universe. " If this were an argument about the existence of god, then the above excerpt from his argument would be relevant, although still not the most logical piece of writing in the world. But it's not, so it isn't. "The idea of a God is one based on faith. It is not based on things we cannot prove because faith requires no proof whatsoever. Therefore, faith isn't flawed. " That's another non-sequitur. Having no proof doesn't in any way make faith flawless. It seems to be the opposite to me; the fact that religious faith equates to believing in something without proof nor evidence in and of itself makes faith illogical, and therefore, flawed. "However, it was tested and was found that rotting meat/flesh didn't produce flies. So, the big bang theory has never been tested and neither has evolution, or even Global Warming, so how can you base arguments off of something that might not even be factual? " My opponent used this as an example to show me that there are "half-truths" in scientific laws (and, I'm assuming, theories) -- but the example he gave hardly constitutes a law, nor a theory. Not even in the same ballpark. It couldn't even pass through the scientific method. Also, I don't think he knows what a half truth is: "a statement only partially true, or which gives only a part of the truth. " (1) The flies coming from rotting meat thing is just blatantly false; no truths involved. And lastly, uh, in order to clime up to the rank of "theory" or "law" in the scientific method, something has to be tested, so evolution, climate change (I don't call it global warming), and the big bang had to go through tests. "And without a first mover, no other mover can move, for they can only move because they were moved. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, God. " This is another rehashed version of the "order needs an organizer" argument. The "mover" isn't necessary, because things were always "in motion. " It sounds weird when put that way, but yeah, here's a quote from my last argument, which applies here, as well: "And the whole "order needs someone to organize it" stuff was addressed, too, when I rebutted the "painting needs a painter" argument. Instead of rebutting the arguments I've put forth, my opponent has chosen to repeat his "points," which means my arguments stand. Just for the sake of coherence and clarification, here's what I said: "the energy the universe is composed of and its forms have always existed; therefore, the universe has always existed, which consequently means it wasn't created, which clearly means there's no need for a creator, which means that a god creating the universe is entirely nonsensical. So that all means that there wasn't a "beginning" to the universe, because it has always been around. Although the idea of a creator has already been negated, this is only further helping that idea, because it's impossible to be around before something that has always existed. " If my opponent wants to win this debate, then my suggestion would be to rebut the arguments I put forth, instead of restating ones which have been negated already. " "If there be no first cause among efficient causes, then there will be no ultimate, nor intermediate clause. Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient clause, God. " The above point is just another way of putting forth the "the universe exists; therefore, a creator exists" argument, which, considering they're the same argument, is debunked by the response I gave to the "painting = panting; order = organizer; movement = mover" stuff. The point I copied and pasted from an earlier post of mine above my opponent's quote negates this argument, and its many variations. "There are things in this world that exist and do not exist. Nothing can exist forever. Therefore if all things could not-be then it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. This is clearly absurd, since things exist now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. That is to say, there is a necessity for a being's existence. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having itself its own necessity and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in other their necessity. That would be God. " . .. I'll go point-by-point: "Nothing can exist forever. Therefore if all things could not-be then it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. This is clearly absurd, since things exist now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. " So because we exist, something exists which needs to exist? That's. .. the biggest non-sequitur yet. It makes no logical sense. "That is to say, there is a necessity for a being's existence. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having itself its own necessity and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in other their necessity. That would be God. " Considering I've already showed the fallacious nature of my opponents third argument, I needn't address this, but meh. The premise that there's a need for the existence of something doesn't match the conclusion that a being exists which is its own "necessity," which means his logic is, yet again, non-sequiturial. "Therefore there must be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection. " So because certain things possess a degree of a certain characteristic, a god therefore exists? My opponent's not matching his premise and conclusion again. Same old story. I guess all the readers can figure out the fallacy used my my opponent in his fifth point, eh? "They act almost always in the same way to get this end, or greatest good. " Beings acting a certain way doesn't at all match with the conclusion that they're being "directed" -- they act to please themselves -- not because of an "end," but because it's inherent in them. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to fulfill the burden which he possessed. Not only that, but I've negated his arguments and shown that they're fallacious.