This house states that there is/was/were a Creator/s.

Your argument is flawed in several ways. For the sake of the reader I will spell them out explicitly. 1) There can be uncaused events. The raison d'ï¿½tre of many quantum events is absolutely nothing. So because things do not need to have causes, my opponent must prove that the universe has a cause. 2) The universe cannot have a cause. The universe is the start of space and time, and thus cannot have a time prior to it's existence and thus, cannot have a cause. 3) God is proposed as a solution, without any demonstration that such a solution is a solution or that God exists. 4) God is assumed to be uncaused and thus violating the argument it was proposed to answer. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, where did God get this matter? 5) My opponent states, "now philosophically if there is a possibility of something (Conceptual possibility) then it must exist (Material existence) in some possible universe." He's wrongly converting the conceptual into the material. There is a very real and unmistakable difference between the two. A concept of God exists can not be converted into God exist, regardless how that concept is defined. 6) To demonstrate this I showed the same example with a Jelly Doughnut. My opponent argued that it needs to be omnipotent to work. However, this isn't a requirement of the argument. It must only be the case that an existing jelly doughnut is better than a conceptual one. However, I should now have an omnipotent jelly doughnut. My opponents argument, fails on all the points. Many of the premises are false, and it doesn't follow. Not everything needs a cause, and proposing God is a non-sequitor, and you can't magic God(s) into existence with wordplay. I admire my opponent for his understanding and reliance on classical theism, but the arguments still aren't very good and certainly aren't sound. This is more true today because they are predicated on premises that science now rejects. ----------- --"I think that when you say... [cut quantum positron electron annihilation description] That things can happen without a cause." Things can and do happen without a cause in quantum mechanics all the time. Nothing causes radioactive decay: it just happens. It happens at a measurable rate over a large number of particles such that we can measure the age of the earth to 4.6 billion years, but the actually "cause" of the decay doesn't exist. --"For if there is no cause than we can not make a cause out of thin air as you so kindly pointed out." This does not follow. If there is no cause, then there is no cause. We are not entitled to invent one. There must be a cause and I've just invented a creator to fill that role; I'm sorry, no. First, there doesn't need to be a cause (ask yourself what caused your God, when you suggest in some manner that there is no cause, realize that that violates the above rule, and any exception of cause could apply equally well if not better to the universe). I didn't avoid your question of where the energy and matter of the Universe comes from: I don't know. That's an absolutely reasonable answer. As for any beginnings, those remain to be proven. But, even submitting that there might be a beginning doesn't force the conclusion that there is a cause. Further the reflexive axiom that there must be an end, doesn't hold for the universe either. Heat death isn't an end, it's just the point where there's nothing left to do. Spacetime exists is the reason why anything exists at all. That idea being, if you add up the energies it all adds up to zero. The fact that these energies are kept apart with spacetime is the reason there is anything at all. If correct, then the matter and energy didn't come from anywhere. -- Answer these without a God/s and without a causeless happening for for everything there is a cause otherwise things would be popping up everywhere. "I don't know" doesn't include a god(s) . Causeless happening is an actual actuality. There is no reason to exclude them. There isn't a cause for everything, and there are things popping up everywhere. All the time we have subatomic particles ripping out of energy and smashing back into themselves or splitting off and combining with other matter. We have causeless things popping up everywhere. -- No you miss understood me I said since it possibly exists it must exist in a POSSIBLE universe not actually exists. The conversion from "possibly exists" to "exists in a possible universe" is a conversion from the conceptual to the non-conceptual. -- The flaw with your jelly doughnut is this. It is not omnipotent. Meaning all powerful or almighty. It is just the best of something not the best of EVERYTHING. That is where you jelly doughnut went. There is no division in the argument for that. My jelly doughnut is the best jelly doughnut possible. Clearly if it actually exists it is better in the capacity of being a jelly doughnut. I do not need to propose that my jelly doughnut is omnipotent, just that it's the best jelly doughnut. Since even the worst existing jelly doughnut must be better than the best conceptual jelly doughnut, my jelly doughnut must be existing. -- The argument holds if one is allowed to bridge the qualitative difference between conceptual existence and material existence with wordplay. --It had to come from somewhere. If it came from there, where did *that* energy come from? You either need to violate the conservation of matter/energy or surrender the point. --Is there a system that put it into motion? I don't know. --Something did. That doesn't mean it's a system. It could be something as a kin to the decay of a sub atomic particle. It's certainly in motion now as an alpha particle is quickly emitted, but it wasn't put into motion by any system. It wasn't even put into motion by a cause (if you really want to cook your noodle, you can't even know what motion it's in if you know where the particle is). ----If so what is that system and where did it go? --I propose that a Creator/s is that system and that that Creator/s is somewhere (outside of the laws of science). But, there's no indication that we have to go outside the laws of science for an answer. Further, perhaps the origin of the universe is simply outside the laws of science. Indeed all of our laws of science only apply to the universe. And, if spacetime exists, then the universe already exists. And you can have no time prior to the universe, nothing could cause the universe, or needs to. One could have a origin outside the laws of science that doesn't require the agency that proposing a "creator" assumes. However, the larger problem is that you propose a creator. That is not an argument nor is it reasonable or sound. You cannot simple propose something as a solution without actually demonstrating that it is, in fact, the correct solution. You have shown very strong evidence that you *propose* there is a creator in order to answer questions, which science dictates might not need any answers. However, you've done nothing to establish that this is a solution, nor have you answered the problem that you've just outsourced the problem. If some creator(s) is the source of entropy, matter, energy, etc, then where did this creator(s) come from. This proposes again the very same question as we are given to ask about the universe. While you seem to accept that this source is "outside the laws of physics". But, without spacetime, any origin for this matter and energy would equally be outside the laws of physics. -- Further, it isn't true that "philosophically if there is a possibility" that there must be "existence in a possible universe". You are saying that conceptual things exist in possibility and then make the leap to material things. However this a qualitative difference and the leap cannot be made.