There is a God who created the universe

<"In the previous round, I can infer my opponent believes the following things: (a) Since we have science, we have no need for a God. (b) It is logical to believe that several chemical building blocks have here for all of time, but illogical to believe that a God has existed for all of time. (c) The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters. (d) The aspect of God varies from culture to culture, and is therefore a cultural aspect."> ...my opponent has put forth a series of straw men. (1) <"(a) Since we have science, we have no need for a God."> I never said that at all; my opponent is completely misrepresenting my argument. I was saying that since the universe's constituency has always existed, that means there's no need for a creator. I also said it's impossible to be around before something that has always been. That doesn't equate to "we have science; therefore, we have no need for a god." <"b) It is logical to believe that several chemical building blocks have here for all of time, but illogical to believe that a God has existed for all of time."> Yes, it's logical to believe that the energy the universe consists of has always existed -- why? Because energy cannot be created, nor destroyed; it only changes form. Which means that energy has always been. There's absolutely no reason to believe an omnipotent being has been around forever and created the universe; in fact, I've shown that there's reason to believe that such a being doesn't even exist. <"(c) The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters."> No. My point was that the idea that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove the existence of any kind of deity. That rationale is, as I've stated, a non-sequitur, which therefore means it's fallacious, which therefore means that it fails. <"First of all, the burden of proof falls on my opponent to convince me that the universe has been around forever."> Again, no. The burden of proof lies with my opponent -- not me. I only have to negate the arguments which are brought forth by him. <"(a) Humans invited science. (b) Humans are flawed (we don't know everything) (c) Therefore, science is flawed."> Going by the premises my opponent has asserted, then he has no basis to say that a creator exists. If everything we (humans...clearly) conceive is flawed because we as people are flawed, then the idea of a creator has to be flawed, as well. Furthermore, my opponent says science in general is flawed -- but doesn't specifically address anything I said. I'd like him to show me the flaws in the science I've mentioned. Lastly, I believe that my opponents syllogism is...well, flawed. It can essentially state that *anything*which comes about as a result of humans has zero credibility. <"And even if you were to prove the science true, since you are human and humans our flawed, your conclusion would be flawed. Which would make it not true."> The above point put forth by my opponent is, uh, a few superheroes short of a comic book -- a logical mess. Let me explain. So, something that is objectively true cannot be true, because we're human? Let me ask you this: is that true? My opponent's human; he has drawn conclusions, so by his own logic, his arguments can't be true. My opponent is essentially refuting himself. My opponent is saying that humans are flawed, which means our conclusions are flawed, which means our conclusions aren't true. So...every conclusion drawn by an individual human is "flawed," and therefore, "not true," according to my opponents logic. By my opponents logic, his own resolution cannot be true. Just thought I'd put that out there. <"He believes that since science exists and it can explain how our universe was created, there is no God."> No. My opponent is correct that I think there is no god -- but his reasoning which attempts to explain why is wrong. To be more accurate, I believe that since science and logic negate the idea of a creator, then a creator doesn't exist. <"I'll take his first statement first: The universe has been around forever. So, there was no big bang? No spark of creation? Even, in a scientific sense, the universe couldn't have been around forever."> The idea of the universe being around forever and the big bang aren't mutually exclusive; they can both be true. <"Now, I have just proved how unintelligible atheism is, but I still have to prove the irrelevancy. The irrelevancy is: Why spend all your time figuring out how the person who drew the tree on the chalkboard got there. The creation (the tree) proves the creator (the artist). Any questions?"> My opponent is again using a straw man argument. Nobody's assuming that something came from nothing. I know I didn't, so my opponents whole analogy is both fallacious and irrelevant. <"My opponent also holds the belief: The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters. He proved this when he said: Ok...well, we have laws of science, which means the universe is perfect; therefore, the flying spaghetti monster exists. What my opponent is trying to say is that, my conclusion that a perfect universe requires a perfect creator could actually prove the existence of anything I wanted it to, even flying spaghetti monsters. Well, do flying spaghetti monsters have the ability to create a perfect universe? No. A God is the only one who would have this kind of power, so my statement can only prove that a God exists."> Ok, I'll address this first: <"My opponent also holds the belief: The idea that the universe is perfect can be used to prove the existence of anything, even flying spaghetti monsters. He proved this when he said: Ok...well, we have laws of science, which means the universe is perfect; therefore, the flying spaghetti monster exists."> Yet another straw man argument put forth by my opponent. I already addressed this; however, I'll repeat myself for the sake of clarification: "My point was that the idea that the universe is perfect can't logically be used to prove the existence of any kind of deity. That rationale is, as I've stated, a non-sequitur, which therefore means it's fallacious, which therefore means that it fails." <"What my opponent is trying to say is that, my conclusion that a perfect universe requires a perfect creator could actually prove the existence of anything I wanted it to, even flying spaghetti monsters."> Again, no. I addressed that just above this, and once at the start of my post; I'm not doing it again. <"Well, do flying spaghetti monsters have the ability to create a perfect universe? No. A God is the only one who would have this kind of power, so my statement can only prove that a God exists."> So, god has the power to create a supposedly perfect universe because god exists, which proves god exists. My opponents reasoning is very circular, and is therefore, invalid. (2) <"It is true that the number of Gods, the nature of God, and other religious factor vary from culture to culture and religion to religion, but still no culture has ever walked the Earth and not tried to explain its presence. Even atheists do it! Atheism is just a godless religion. Instead of a God they have science, so are atheists that much smarter than than theists? In my opinion, no. Because, they basically believe the same thing!"> Most of that is irrelevant to the debate. But yeah, I think my opponent is saying the inquisitive nature of man essentially proves that a god exists, because that proves that the belief in a god is inherited. That is *another* non-sequitur. (1) = http://www.nizkor.org... (2) = http://www.nizkor.org...