is it likely that a god created the universe or not

I thank you for responding.Counter-refutationMy opponent claims that my second premise is invalid, for the universe is created because of The Big Bang, or because of a rapid-energy inflation. My opponent confirms that the universe was actually created because of one of the two unproven theories. Con tries to deductively prove the universe's birth, from two theories, not facts. Another problem with my opponents rebuttal, is that Con claims that the universe can be created from something that has contingent existence... The Big Bang has contingent existence which is dependent on all of space to be contained at a single point (1). However, Con claims that the universe could be created because of "rapid-energy inflation", which is weird, because for the rapid-energy inflation to occur, it would require a universe. Nonetheless, that would also have contingent existence... (2) A contingent entity cannot cause the initial chain, for their would be a reason for that existing. Therefore, a non-contingent being would have to initiate the chain, for that would not depend on something to exist.Now I will quote my opponents arguments and rebut accordingly..."The universe is contingent on the big bang or the rapid-energy inflation"It is impossible for the creator of the universe to exist contingently, for that would have a preceding reason to exist..."It is ignorant to lump everything that is contingent on the universe and lump it into the same type of contingency of the Universe""Ignorant" - ad hominem. And I can't understand what Con's intentions are with this statement... I ask that Con rephrases for next round."This is an assumption based on closely held viewpoint."Likewise; I disagree... The cosmological argument from contingency inductively proves the likeliness of God, and how God created the universe..."We have no right to assert specific dieties as causation."Which is why I did not assign a specific deity to the role of creating the universe. The only entity which can create the universe, has to be:omnipotent, omniscient, and transcendent which I affirmed earlier..."You can literally plug in any mythical diety you like (one that is described as all powerful and all knowing and created the universe) and read "It is likely Zeus exist, and created the universe"On the contrary... Only a deity which has the attributes listed above."According to scientific articles and peer reviewed journals the laws of physics, the material world, and everything we know as reality, were created at the start of the big bang."As I affirmed earlier, it is not factual, it is theory. Even if the Big Bang did occur, it has contingent existence... The only point this proves, is that it gives God another possible way of creating the universe - through the Big Bang. But, I suppose that is deviating away from the resolution... For you to win the argument, you would have to prove why God probably does not exist, and how God probably did not create the universe. " It is theorized that this was the result of a battle between matter and anti matter which was obviously won by matter""Theorised"... not deductive evidence. Even so, this does not disprove the likelihood of God existing, or creating the universe."The implication of God as the creator of the universe is an assumption that holds basis in religion and the cosmological argument can be fulfilled by any outside deity that has existed over thousands of years and fits the major descriptions of God."I disagree; the cosmological argument inductively proves God's existence. It can only be fulfilled by a deity that is: omnipotent, omniscient, and transcendent."There is no solid concrete evidence to further research this argument."I commend to my opponent that I only need to prove the 'likelihood' of God existing and creating the universe, rather than God 'definitely' existing and creating the universe... That's why I do not need to deductively prove God's existence, and to rather inductively prove God's existence."Once you have accepted that God created the universe you must then immediately agree to certain terms of the religion afterwards such as: Not questioning the motives of God"I didn't specify any religion. There was no religion mentioned. As far as this debate is concerned, there is no need for a religion to be mentioned, or discussed at all - it does not disprove the likelihood of God existing, or creating the universe."not knowing how God created the universe, How the elements came into to play, Denying the possibility of extraterrestrial life regardless of how massive the universe actually is."I didn't know that just because one believes in a God, they automatically disprove science or the possibility of aliens. My opponent implys that just because one believes in a God, science is not needed, which is sophistry."With science everyday working harder and harder to explain the very hard to explain, they don't stop at what brought the universe into existence but venture of into how it was done. A question that will never be logically answered by the assumption that God created it."That is not necessarily true... People could want to know how God created the universe. One possibility (as you mentioned) is through the Big Bang."Your premise is ultimately unverifiable and hold's no physical or logical evidence to support it as claiming something doesn't necessarily make it true."As said previously, I do not need to deductively prove that God exists... "no... logical evidence to support it". How is there no logical evidence? The whole argument is based on logic - if 'a' exists, because 'b' exists, because 'c' exists (this could go on forever, which is not possible). There has to be something to start the chain, which does not have a meaning to exist, which would have to be God."If you are not religious and aren't afraid to question the motives of God please present research on how scientists theorize God created the earth and present evidence outside of the creation myth."My opponent committed what is known as a, "moving the goalposts" fallacy (3). My opponent claims that I need to post evidence that is produced by Atheists to fulfill my BoP. Why should I? I have already produced a logical argument that inductively verifies the likelihood of God existing and creating the universe. I refer Con to the resolution "is it likely that a God created the universe or not?" "Below are theories and evidence on how the earth came to be by credentialed scientists."I do not see how this disproves the likelihood of God existing, or creating the universe.I would have actually accepted your argument If you claimed that God created the big bang which in turn caused the universe to create itself. You did accept. The Big Bang is only theorised - still does not disprove the likelihood of God existing - grants God a way of creating the universe - through The Big Bang.Summary:-Con tries to invalidate my premise, by claiming that I need to provide deductive evidence.-Con still has to fulfill his BoP.-The foundations of Con's argument is stating that there is a chance that The Big Bang occurred, therefore, God cannot exist, and couldn't have created the universe. Whereas, my inductive evidence proves that God would have to create the universe, because God is the only entity that can be omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent and and non-contingent.-Con commits the 'ad hominem' and 'moving the goalposts' logical fallacy.To you, Con . :)(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...