Resolution: A creator of the universe exists.

--Refutations-- KCA:The majority of my opponents arguments lie on the KCA, and this is the main premise I need to refute to win this debate so it seems. I will refute the premise in order.Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause This is false, as many things begin to exist without a cause. Look at quantum fluctuations, these energy particles form temporarily OUT OF NOTHING. [1] Odd isn't it? This here cripples the argument, as many things that come to be now do not need any cause. Also may I add it is quantum fluctuations that have created the big bang, this right here shows the universe needn't have a cause. [2] As this is the case, we can now assume the universe needn't have a cause! This means the whole KCA is fully refuted.Premise 2: The Universe came to exist I agree, but this proves nothing with P1 refuted.Premise 3: Therefore the universe has a causeAs stated, the thing that created the big bang was a quantum fluctuation, which can spontaneously spawn from nothing. As the big bang created the universe, and its cause comes from nothing, the universe needn't need a cause. KCA refuted.--> Hilbert Hotel My opponents case here is relating to the beginning of the universe, and infinity. May I first add, for this argument to be sound infinity must exist. As the universe is finite, infinity cannot exist. To do anything infinitey, there must be an infinite amount of time. As there is a finite amount of time, infinity cannot exist. As this is true the argument is invalid, as the argument is meant to be in era of current time (well current as in universes existence). Second, the premise also claims there is nothing to start the universe, as nothing exists, therefore some omnipotent being must exist. Once again this is false as the big bang created the universe, [2] and the things that created the universe (quantum fluctuations) can become to exist out of NOTHING. [1] This proves the universe needn't have a omnipotent godly cause.The Thomistic First Mover:I will refute each premise:Premise 1: Every being is either a dependent being or is self existing This first assumes we have a god. As I will prove in this debate, we do not. And the main argument is nothing is in control of its own movement, my opponent has actually written the wrong argument. [3] But basically the argument is the first mover is the thing that creates all movement, and we are dependent. So for my opponent to win this argument he must disprove free will, and that things can come out of nothing[1], and as he has not done so the argument is invalid.Premise 2: Not every being can be a dependent being My opponent has provided no justification for this. So my argument will be of similar quality: Every being is dependent. (shouldn't the word be independent here? Premise 3 is not needed for refutation. --Case--~P1~ God is all loving and powerful, and if this is true it is impossible evil could exist.~P2~ There is evil in the world we live in.~C~ Therefore god cannot existP1: God is all loving and powerful, and evil cannot exist logically under thisAs I have stated the bible says many times god is all loving and powerful. [4] Of this is the case then why does evil exist? Evil in our world is unavoidable. Example: I dropped a rock on my foot, and I allow an excruciating surgery to fix it, but it could be considered evil. People get killed every day, tune into the news. Recently there was an ohio shooting, [5] and that is considered evil."on the face of it, the idea that God may well permit gratuitous evil is absurd. After all, if God can get what He wants without permitting some particular horror (or anything comparably bad), why on earth would He permit it?" [6]Gods existence seems logically dis-proven on this point as as he wants to prevent and protect us, why would he permit its existence? P2: There is evil in the world we live in.This point is not deniable. There is evil in the world we live in. The bible itself concedes the point that we have all sinned in the face of the lord. [8] There is murder, rape, robbery, assault, stealing, cheating etc. I expect I need say little more on this point as it is pretty much a fact, and little need be said more about P1 as evils compatibility with god is zero. Conclusion: My opponent has the BOP, and has not fulfilled it, and I have refuted his arguments and disproved god. Vote CON._____[1] http://universe-review.ca... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.blazingtruth.com...[4] The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 [5] http://abcnews.go.com...[6] Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 1999. "Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?" (accessed through PDF)