A creator of the universe exists.

1. Argument from Reason[1][2]If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . .. and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. —J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds, page 2091) Naturalism is true 2) Naturalism entails that there is not an original purpose, or aboutness (intentionality) of the universe. 3) But there is aboutness (intentionality) now. 4) Either aboutness “emerged” or it did not. 5) Aboutness did not emerge. Therefore, Naturalism is not trueThis is a reformulation done by the blog Rational Perspectives. This argument is also deductively sound, if the premises are true the conclusions naturally follow. Now premise one is assumed for argument, I am not making the biggest concession ever :). Now naturalism will fundamentally entail that there is no purpose or teleological explanation about the universe, no intentionality, no Qualia, etc. Now this apart of the definition of Naturalism along with what it entails because such things could not be discovered by sciences at least in principle. It would be a strange form of physicalism/naturalism, in deed not one worth the name, that conceded that there exists purpose in the universe while similarly affirming that their aboutness existed along with intentionality without affirming dualism. You see intentionality is the ability for something to about something else, for example I might have beliefs about the cake(its a lie) I have a representation of reality that is either true or false. However physical states aren't really about anything. For example, a rock lying in the sun isn't really about anything. So aboutness exists now, we know simply by having true beliefs or meaningfully asserting something. The denial of which is self-defeating, if your beliefs are not about anything then they do not have determinate content and therefore we cannot know whether they are true or not. To illustrate that point I will give a example. 1 + 1= 2 this belief is about mathematics. If one is to deny intentionality it really isn't about mathematics. Its not about anything specifically. Therefore, how do we know the concept always applies? Concepts such as formal logic and mathematics fall apart if intentionality is false. Now if that's true, aboutness exists now and it cannot have been here since the beginning of universe as Naturalism entails no initial purpose or aboutness exists for the universe. But Aboutness couldn't have emerged, because it would be unreasonable to affirm it emerged, there is no coherent possibilities on how this could happen and non-rational sources do not produce intentional causes. Non-reason cannot produce reason. Humans are the result of billions of years of random and mindless processes working through natural selection. Why should we think that these mindless processes have been able to yield a being who is able to think rationally? How can we meaningfully say that intentionality simply emerged on Naturalism. Unless my opponent can justify Aboutness emerged, then this argument stands and Naturalism is false.2. The Teleological Argument[3][4] “Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation” -William Paley My next argument is the teleological argument in which was originally proposed by Islamic writers but most popularly by William Paley. 1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design 2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance 3. Therefore it is due to design When laws of nature are expressed, there are certain constants that are independent of the laws of nature. Furthermore, there are only certain values of ranges in which it could be life-permitting, for example the cosmological constant (also called dark energy) exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe. As Dr. Hugh Jones said "One part in 10^37 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (Incomparison, the money to pay for the U. S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes. ). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the reddime are one in 10^37. Now can it be due to necessity? No because they are independent of the laws of nature. My opponent might respond, How? The constants are consitant for a vast range of values within the laws of the universe. He might say what about the theory of everything? Such a argument presupposes that constants are affected by the laws of nature, because if their not then the argument doesn't work. What about chance? Well, the fine-tuning of universe has a combination a pattern and a sense of randomness, similar in a way that a code for spies or something sinister, therefore we can successfully conclude that it is design. It seems much more probable that a designer exists; Paley's watch seems to suggest that God exists. The analogy helps to support the assertion that it is not chance. We don't assume a watch on a beach is simply made by chance. While it is not a perfect analogy nevertheless no analogy is perfect and this still supports the second premise. Therefore the fine tuning of the universe is due to design. Design implies designer. 3. Kalam Cosmological Argument[5] My second argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, from which was first stated by Al-Ghazali. I will be defend the contemporary argument by William Lane Craig. William Lane Craig formulates the argument as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. There are good reasons, mathematic and philosophical, to believe infinite is a idea rather than a actual number. Suppose I have an infinite amount of coins and you take away all the odd ones. I would still have infinity. So infinity minus infinity equals infinity, now what about if you take away all coins after 3, now I have 3, so infinity minus infinity is equal to 3. The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem states that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater 1 that system had to have a finite beginning. The first premise is arrived at by any form of reasoning and causation; we don't see pizza's popping into existence. Why would universes be exclusively what comes out of nothing? Try to imagine something coming out of nothing prior to the existence. As David Oderberg once said the existence of nothing followed by something is ridiculous because the words followed by cannot be understood since followed by is incoherent for a time when there was no time. This is premise is follows the metaphysical principle out of nothing, nothing comes. Even if the first premise were false we simply cast the KCA into inductive terms saying its more likely everything beings to exist has a cause. Truly my opponent has the burden of proof in defeating premise one since it seems to be a properly basic belief. Beliefs such as these are true without justification because to prove would be impossible. Such as the universe exists or you exist. From the conclusion, we can conclude a cause that is spaceless and timeless having created space-time, immensely powerful having created the universe, and a agent having created a universe(abstract objects don't bring things into being) and personal for how could a impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect. I thank my opponent for this debate I hope we have a good discussion. My sources will be posted in comments.