You need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe.

I apologize for branching off in my argument and bringing in evolutionary theory into play. I will narrow my argument to better fit the topic and focus on the birth of the universe. As to the argument of what nothing is, I will quote Con below on his definitions of nothing: "Nothing as know it now - operates under the laws of physics and science that we have available at this moment." "Nothing that existed before time - This is saying that what is nothing now, was not the nothing before the universe" -Rebuttal: My argument would be that the first definition should not be categorized as a definition of "nothing" since there is indeed something there. Particles that seemingly pop in and out of existence are existing, and therefore not accurately cast as nothing. I believe it folly to call what we can examine "nothing". I use this argument to in refute to the quantum physics lesson Con went on to demonstrate. To further the second explanation of what "nothing" is, I will again quote Con and refute: "The second can be automatically removed from this argument. It is scientifically impossible to prove, and is counter intuitive. If you say the nothing that we now know, is not the nothing that existed before the creation of the universe then we are assuming that all the laws of science came into fruition when the big bag occurred. The law of general relativity, law of thermodynamics, etc. So if we define nothing this way, it is quite possible to assume that there is a possibility that the universe could arise from nothing because there are variables at play that we do not know about. This is the most logical assumption and is far easier to arrive at than adding a God into the mix. Even if my adversary where to argue that this is the same line of logic that someone could support a God with, I could classify it as a logical assumption using the same line of logic that he uses to support that God. Since he bears the BOP, it would be on him to show that his theory is more sound that mine." -Rebuttal: Many things are scientifically impossible to prove, but we explore their possibilities as a part of vital investigation to answer the mysteries within our time. Thoughts about what existed before the universe have been thought of from Plato onward. Top Down Causation for instance is exploring this very frontier. A couple of references to Top Down Causation: http://humbleapproach.templeton.org... http://www.youtube.com... And if you have a lot of time on your hands see the youtube links: http://www.youtube.com... Top Down Causation makes an attempt to examine the patterns, and the complexity of everything around us. It sees the cause and does not ignore it as irrelevant. Cause is as much a part as effect. If we examine the effects of the universe so closely, why do we not examine the cause? One who believes that the universe birthed itself, irrationally turns a blind eye to cause. Cause, does not matter, only effect. I argue that this is an illogical view of the universe. Cause is not to be ignored. My opponent has tried to use what we can see and study within the universe to prove that it can exist without God. I refute this because all that we can see within our universe is malleable. Sapce-time itself can be bent to extremes. Everything we see here is a product of one event, one explosion. What existed before the event is unknown, but investigating the patterns and trying to not only use our current logical processes, but also extend those very processes to search for answers. Patterns, designs, and the echo of the causes from top to bottom should not be ignored by simply tossing around Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor has been too often over-extended. It is a useful guideline meant to streamline scientific findings, not a law. We must advance with and beyond Occam's Razor. I close my argument. My opponent has provided weak suggestion that the universe does not need a God. I have provided actual theory that it patterns and Top Down Causation does. To step beyond the argument, most of us are sensible enough to know that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. From the beginning, Con has asked the impossible of the Pro to prove that which cannot be proven, and has suggested that he should win by default if the I cannot. I prefer a fair argument that asks equally of the participants. I urge a vote for Pro. I thank my opponent for a well organized debate. My response in the third round will be no response at all but to say "No round as agreed upon."