Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is the Best Explanation for the Beginning of the Universe

Introduction"Let's note Con must show us a valid alternative to DCEH" - PenningtonI did, but I urge voters to knock Pro on conduct for this. The debate outline stated that the burden of proof was on the theistic side. If I provide another explanation, it is because I feel like it.C1) Theistic HypothesisPro claims that he showed that when we do not have natural explanations, seeking supernatural explanations are acceptable. This seems like a strange point to make, as my Timeless Immaterial Potential explanation is supernatural. Thus, obviously I concede a non-natural explanation to the natural world. Another statement was made that my criticism of his opening argument fails, because he provided certain principles. This is another strange point to make, as I already conceded that my opponent provided principles. The problem was that he did not defend these principles as true. C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine CreationArgument for AtheismApparently, I have not defended the notion that it is possible for a greater species to evolve than us. However, this is extremely easy to do as God is defined as Omnipotent. We all can easily conceive of a species greater than us. If a maximally great being exists, he could conceive of an even greater species than the species we are conceiving of necessarily; and greater. Thus, it is impossible for us to be the greatest species because if we could conceive of greater; than so could God if he exists. To deny the intuition that leads us to that conclusion, would be to deny the same intuition the theist uses to say certain great making properties are objectively great in the first place. Thus, humans being the greatest species possible is metaphysically unreasonable. However, if a maximally great being exists then his person would be a reflection of his choices. Humans exist. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist. I will explain in more detail using a syllogism here:P1: If a Maximally Great Being fine-tuned the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 that lead to the Human species existing at T=N (time=now), then what he also did was not fine-tune the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 that lead to a more great species with free-will than the Human species, instead of the Human species existing at T=N. * "If a person does action 'A' at time t, then what that person also did was not do any other actions they could have been doing, instead of action 'A' at time t. This is a mandatory truth."P2: If a Maximally Great Being exists, he fine-tuned the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 that lead to the Human species existing at T=N.* "This argument is not really for Young Earth Creationists who reject the evidence of The Big Bang. I am going to assume that the other theists will agree with me on this." P3: If a Maximally Great Being exists he is Omnipotent; thus, at the very least it would have been *possible* for him to fine-tune the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 to lead to a more great species with free-will than the Human species, instead of the Human species existing at T=N.* "I defend this in the first paragraph of this section."P4: If a Maximally Great Being exists, he would choose more great instead of less great *if possible*.* "A Maximally Great Being choosing "less" great when it was possible for him to choose "more" great, would be like an Entirely Red House having one blue brick rather than a red brick in its place, when it was possible for it to have the red brick. These situations involve scenarios which contradict the notion of their very beings; and would not be the case as they have to be consistent with their natures. I would bet theists grant me this premise, as it would be absurd not to."P5: A Maximally Great Being would not have fine-tuned the initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 that lead to the Human species existing at T=N.* "The theist will not like the above, but it follows from the preceding premises."P6: The initial Big Bang conditions at T=0 lead to the Human species existing at T=N.* "This is self-evident. The theist cannot deny this without self-refutation."C: A Maximally Great Being is not possible. * "This follows from all the preceding premises."Defense of the Cosmological argumentI already concede a cause of the universe for the sake of the debate. This section from Pro was a waste of time.C1B - The Teleological Argument"Even if the actual being who fine-tuned the universe is not the maximally great being, the being must ultimately come from and answer to the maximally great being." - PenningtonThis assumes there is a maximally great being. My Argument from Atheism shows there is no maximally great being. Therefore, the above is trivial.C1C - Unexplainable"This is a illogical statement. Of course my explanation is the best explanation if no other exist" - PenningtonThis is an illogical statement from Pro as others exist; such as Timeless Immaterial Potential.C3) DCEN is the Simplest ExplanationPro concedes my point here.Alternative Explanation to DCEN"I have never conceieved of such a notion." - PenningtonI did not assert that Pro did actually conceive of such a notion. I only implied that no reason has been given as to why a sentient supernatural mind is more conceivable than a non-sentient supernatural function of some kind we are unaware of.Timeless Immaterial Potential"It is obvious that Cons argument here is unfounded so lets keep that in mind and address his premises." - PenningtonIt is not too obvious how this is so obvious. I really hope my opponent has something interesting to bring to the table.(1) Less questions remain"Questions always remain when dealing with physical cause. Your hypothesis is on the same level if not more questionable than mine." - PenningtonMy cause is not physical, it is non-physical and supernatural. It is clear Pennington did not even read my hypothesis. Since God could have not created us if he pleased, we are still left with questions about why we exist. With Timeless Immaterial Potential, our existence is mandetory. The inherit spontaneous transition function would require the becoming of symmetry breaking (atemporal to temporal).(2) The Universe Came from Something"God could have created us and you have not shown otherwise." - PenningtonThe resolution does not rest on whether God could have or not, this must be the best explanaton. Regardless, I showed why a maximally great being cannot exist. Since the Divine cannot exist without God, then Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is a horrible explanation."My opponent also makes the assumption that my hypothesis requires something from nothing" - PenningtonThis is embarrassing for Pro. "Ex nihilo" means "out of nothing". If Pennington does not think the universe came from nothing, then my opponent concedes that Creatio Ex Nihilo is not a good explantation."God is not nothing." - PenningtonThis just means that if your hypothesis is true, then the universe must have came into being by God. This does not mean the universe came from God. You are confusing Creatio Ex Nihilo with Creatio Ex Deo [1]. How can my opponent win the debate when he does not even know which view he is defending?"This already seems improbable because it denies a intellilectual mind as we have." - PenngintonHaving a mind now, does not mean minds had to exist when the universe was caused. It is much more likley that the cause is something we do not experience. We experience time; the cause must be timeless. We experience physical; the cause must be non-physical. We experience space; the cause must be spaceless. Why break this pattern for personality? We experience personality, so it is more likely non-personal if we go with the same pattern we see with regarding to other conclusions pertaining to the cause.Conclusion . Pro failed to support his position.. A divine creation cannot occur, because a divine God cannot exist (Argument for Atheism).. TIP > DCEN. The resolution has been negated. Source[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;