A creator of the universe exists

1. InfinityThe semantics that the debate over infinity have become (as it often does) shows just how volatile this argument is. It is incoherent, and in no way, shape, or form can be properly extrapolated to prove an intelligent "creator" of the universe. As noted previously, it is not possible to move from the observable laws of the cosmos to proof of a divine being. There is no possible way, and it has never even been tried. The progressions made in the sciences (via the scientific method as explicated so elegantly by Kant in Critique of Pure Reason) cannot lead one to a belief in a deity, conceptually or practically. The incredibly large majority of atheists in the American Academy of Sciences seems to show that those who devote their lives to these fields see no way in which the concepts they study can be used to defend a belief in a god. And there is good reason for this:2. FalsifiabilityYou will see the arguments proposed by Pro are categorically unfalsifiable. The falsifiability of an argument does not depend on whether or not it has been disproved (or "falsified") at this point in time, but whether or not it is even conceptually possible to disprove. The deist "creator" falls quite easily into the "unfalsifiable" category. A good thought experiment deals with the Higgs-Boson: we may very well prove that we can physically and naturally create something from nothing (ex-nihilo), but alas it will be claimed that this is the way in which this creator makes math. It was the same with evolution: when the facts seemed to disprove the theist/deist theory of the origin of our species, it was said to fit with the unoverthrowable, unfalsifiable theory that they already had: evolution was simply the mode that God used. You will see with this logic that anyone could walk up to you and say that there is an invisible unicorn standing next to you that you can't touch, hear, see, smell, or feel. You would be quite justified in asking "Why would I believe that?" By Pro's logic, it would make an acceptable and convincing argument for the other individual to say "Because you can't prove me wrong." Now this, I propose, is true reductio ad absurdum, at its worst. 3. Burden of ProofPro seems to think that basic functions of our universe are "difficult" to prove. Mathematics is hardly difficult to prove. In fact, the entire field is based on learning proofs, applying their conclusions, and extrapolating through combination with other basic and proved concepts. You will note that Pro has the ultimate BOP in this debate, and that is quite clear. You will note that it is quite a large step, with no logical intermediate moves between "infinity can't exist in the time-dependent universe" to "everything must have been created by an intelligent creator!" No intermediates, simply assumptions based on his or her (and our species as a whole) failure to grasp that which has not been entirely and conclusively explained. You will note that this is the logic that got us religions telling us how old the world was, what the earth's relationship was to the sun, how our species originated. Alas, answers were made up because of our inability to cope with the uncertainty -- and this argumentation has not ended, as seen here. It is truly a sign from the "stamp of our lowly origins," as Darwin put it. Simply put, I believe the Higgs-Boson and the general trend of religious claims being taken down over and over and over again (with resistance that ultimately failed) would point us to a view of taking the uncertainty of it all over extrapolating to this creator from the basic laws of science, which cannot possibly point to a creator. There is a reason why it is called "faith" and not "knowledge," for faith in this deity is exactly that: willingness to assume what you have been asked to prove with your accordance in the Burden of Proof. \4. The TeleologicalPro gives no reason why has he assumed that these constants are independent of the laws of nature, much less that the necessity/chance explanations can be so irresponsibly thrown out. His insistence on "the grandeur of the universe" is separate from the natural mechanisms and natural laws which operate in this universe. In the Einsteinian sense, it is the fact that these constants are nature, they are the things which construct the natural universe, and it is for this reason that this universe is indeed something to be considered numinous. The universe inspires awe, as anyone who has really seen the Hubble telescope's pictures knows. This is best explicated by Douglas Adams in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? In short, the "design" is the universe, the natural laws are what our universe are comprised of. And they never fault, never change, and that is the truly numinous, nothing more and nothing less. Teleology is not the sole property of the deist or the theist. 5. First MoverMy opponent seems to have missed my first line in the last round. His arguments regarding Hilbert, the first mover, the uncaused cause, they are all the same argument. They all deal with the infinite regress and Pro's assumption that this cannot be possible, which he inexplicably uses as "proof" for a creator, although no logical intermediate steps are given. Surely it can be seen that he has made quite a leap here, quite possibly passing by plenty of better and more comprehensive explanations than the one which happens to coincide with, once again, "the stamp of our lowly origins." Pro mustn't be so hasty in assuming concessions or even arbitrarily granting yourself immune from your burden of proof. As pointed out, he fails to give reason why this deity should be allowed to be exempt from the regression, fails to give reason why the assumed incoherence of a regression would leave us with only the "creator" option left. The monomania in his argumentation is stark and quite clear.6. Assumptions of ScientismI think it's quite interesting how prone Pro is to labeling his opponent with things like "Scientism" when he clearly does not have enough information to make such a conclusion. This is a debate with much involved: it relies on empirical, scientific data, mathematical concepts, specie origination, and alas philosophical investigation. While Pro is clearly quite versed in the philosophical, I fear his haste in these labels shows, once again, a monomania of sorts. The number of straw men is astounding to me, and it mustn't be missed by the readers. My opponent has failed to meet his BOP, has assumed what he is required to prove, and in these failures attempts to exploit the misappropriated connotations of his assumptions. My charge of rhetorical trickery stands.7. On the H-BThe Higgs Boson shows, quite elegantly, that creation ex-nihilo is hardly a concept that is unthinkable. The particle found is in complete accordance with the theory, and I think the very fact that such a theory is so widespread, and receives such coverage, shows that your argument that creation ex-nihilo is something that can only be done by an intelligent creator is on quite shaky ground. You seem to be in the same position as those who were most startled by the discovery of evolution, which quite elegantly showed that the assumptions via misunderstandings of the previous generations were also on quite shaky ground, and of the worst kinds of cognitive exploitation. 8. On ConductI find your charges of condescension and pretention (the latter hardly being improper in my opinion) are all to reminiscent of those who were in your exact position when the new theories of the universe (Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Kant, etc.) posed a threat to the common worldview of the time. It was all too common to hear the same charges against those philosophers and scientists, whose assumed arrogance were clearly a result of the threat they posed to the believers.