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

Thank you Con. Let's note Con must show us a valid alternative to DCEH. I will keep Cons structure. C1) Theistic Hypothesis Con said I did not offer support here therefore he ignores it. I did show that when we do not have natural explanations, seeking unnatural or supernatural explanations are acceptable. I gave principles that explain we are not privilaged observers of the universe or God. All these premises have a common pattern. The existence of the universe for so long as it has existed is something unknown by science. Science can explain the occurrence of one state in terms of a previous state. It can explain a state being in their positions by a previous state. But what science cannot explain is why there are any state of affairs at all.[1] Only does the Theistic Hypothesis given a accurate explanation. C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine Creation Argument for Atheism: The Defense of Premise 2"If a maximally great being exists, then the initial Big Bang conditions would have been fine-tuned so a greater species than humans evolved" Con must show that humans are not the greatest species that can evolve. Since this maximally great being supposedly created human beings to refeclt Himself then we have reason to believe human beings are the greatest species available unless Con shows otherwise. Defense of the Cosmological argument "If you were quite accustomed to finding such objects of various sizes around you most of the time, but had never seen an ordinary rock, then upon finding a large rock in the woods one day you would be just as puzzled and mystified. This illustrates the fact that something that is mysterious ceases to seem so simply by its accustomed presence. It is strange indeed, for example, that a world such as ours should exist; yet few men are very often struck by this strangeness, but simply take it for granted."http://mind.ucsd.edu... The principle of sufficient reason[2] follows that there must be a reason for the existence of everything in the world and for the universe itself. All the principle requires is that there be some sort of reason for everything. Con concedes there is a cause. C1B - The Teleological Argument Con drops this contention other than saying, "it would not mean that it was fine-tuned by a maximally great being. My Argument for Atheism bypasses 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. Therefore fine-tuning would be a result of the maximally great being. Are we to say the maximally great being does not know or does not approve of fine-tuning of the universe?C1C - Unexplainable "Even if science cannot explain the universe, this does not mean that Pro's explanation is the best simply because we cannot think of anything else." This is a illogical statement. Of course my explanation is the best explanation if no other exist. Though maybe ignorant, no other explanation available leaves mine as the only one to accept. If no natural explanations are at hand, we would always be justified in seeking one.C3) DCEN is the Simplest Explanation "If one option has far more explanatory power and is the most likely option based on all available information, it should not be rejected simply because another hypothesis is simpler." I would agree. Con must show his explanation is simpler. I contend that philosophy and visual universe gives the likely option that the universe was created DCEH. I also contend that thought and vision are simpler than any material cause we can muster. Alternative Explanation to DCEN " One could easily conceive of the idea that something immaterial can exist independently of our material and natural world that is not a personal mind." I have never conceieved of such a notion.Timeless Immaterial Potential It is obvious that Cons argument here is unfounded so lets keep that in mind and address his premises. Why is TIP superior to DCEN? (1) Less questions remain Many questions remain, with God few questions are needed. Questions always remain when dealing with physical cause. Your hypothesis is on the same level if not more questionable than mine. (2) The universe came from something God could have created us and you have not shown otherwise. My opponent also makes the assumption that my hypothesis requires something from nothing. God is not nothing. He is outside matter and time. My hypothesis contends that the universe did come from something and was caused to expand by the BB. Con contends that infinite regress is not possible with his hypothesis. Con leaves with a hypothesis identical to God except there involving no mind. This already seems improbable because it denies a intellilectual mind as we have. It makes us question were our consious came from. Until Con digs deeper we are left asking more question when we can just say, God. In creation we can know ourselves only relative to what we experience with another. Without that other to which we can compare ourselves we will not know what we think and believe. It is the realization that our lives are interlinked that we truly embrace a conscious creator. Back to Con. SOURCES: [1] http://www.leaderu.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...