Resolution: A creator of the universe exists.

--POE--My opponents refutation is actually a refutation to a wrong argument. As this is the case, I will extend the argument of the POE.He claims I said god was "evil", when I said nothing of the sort. My argument was simple, god is against evil, he has the power to defeat evil, if this is true there would be no evil, there is evil, therefore god exists. My opponents argument totally lies off of my saying "god is evil", with other references as this would be immoral, and unlikely. This was not the argument, it was god is unlikely to exists with other things in existence (like evil). Basic argument is god stands against evil, and is morally perfect, all knowing and all powerful, therefore he would prevent all evil. As evil exists we can assume god does not exist. [1]As my opponent has not refuted the actual POE that I presented, my case stands 100% intact, therefore I should win this debate, as my BOP is filled. Now, if I make an room for doubt in multiple arguments of his, or even just attempt to refute them, I should already get a con vote. My opponent has not refuted the argument of:~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 existTherefore my case stands.--KCA--My opponents refutation is my argument lies on I used an epistemic argument. For those who do not know who this is this is an argument based off of knowledge and science. [2] As my opponent is refuting an argument on the existence of the universe, (my argument) I will again counter with more of this, then refute his actual premise. As I believe I have proven god has no creator and some things require nothing to start, correct? As it is highly philosophically possible for everything to come from nothing, and therefore everything has a cause. [3] The basic argument for the KCA, the everything must have a cause. But, may I ask, if things can come from nothing, then isn't it viable for things (the universe) to come from nothing? Theists, much of the time, deny this premise. Then it can be countered if everything can not come from nothing then how did god come along? It's a very long cycle that is highly pragmatic. So, now instead of making my old arguments again I will actually refute my opponents claim of we are measuring in our fields. My opponents argument is lying on the assumption that some type of entity exists, and god must explain my argument. [4] But this is faulty, as this fist assumes god is the cause for all, and also assumes god exists. As you have no refuted my argument, god does not exist. (it stands 100%)so for the purpose of this debate the argument you have presented is invalid. My opponent thinks me conceding premise 2 is giving up the whole argument, which is not the case as premise 1 is the most important one. Premise 2 is simply the universe exists. Premise 1 is the one assuming everything has a cause. As I have proven not everything needs a cause, the whole argument comes tumbling down. Lets take out premise one, and see if it is valid:-Universe began to exist -The universe has a causeThis does not add up. Me conceding point 2 is ok, as point two is only valid if premise one exists. P is invalid unless Q is proved along with it. As Q was refuted P is invalid, and C is now false.--Hilbert's Hotel--He essentially dropped this argument.--Thomistic Cosmological Argument--Oh so I will refute my opponents arguments in order:2(a) and 2(b), 5(a), 5(b), 5(c)My opponents first argument is an unintelligible argument is invalid, yet forgets 2(b) is also unintelligible, as the supernatural under most definitions is unexplainable. So as 2(a) and (b) fall under the same category one must now see what is logical. I have proven many things, the things that come from nothing, create the universe. As these things are spontaneous, there is no need for 2(b)'s explanation to be god, rather quantum fluctuations deciding to create the big bang. My opponents only argument here is false, as 2(a) and 2(b) are both the same if god is defined as a supernatural all powerful being. So his argument here is false.He then breaks things into categories, I ill make is 5(a), science, 5(b), personal, 5(c) essential. My opponents argument actually leads me to the conclusion of 5(a) is correct, the way he words it. As I have stated throughout the debate things without a cause with scientific proof have created the universe, therefore the argument in 5(a) is valid to this very moment. His 5(b) is a baseless assertion based on PERSONAL, may I repeat PERSONAL belief on the way the universe was created. 5(b) is based off of no facts and as the way he worded is just a feeling. 5(a) trumps 5(b). Now 5(c) is the universe has some essential aspect to it. This too is flawed, as our existence is not essential, rather luck in my theory, or a privilege in his. 5(a) trumps 5(c).My conclusion to this is any rational person would agree with 2(a), and 5(a).---> My opponents perceived dropped arguments My opponent claims I dropped 3 of the arguments of the 6 in this category, but if you read his case he summarized the arguments in the end into 3 broad points, in which I refuted. It was very helpful to me, as it was easier for me to read every time I looked over. As I refuted this premise, and then went and basically refuted some of the details in the middle of my mess, I have refuted this argument.CONCLUSION: My opponents refutation to the POE was not the refutation to the actual POE, and therefore 100% of my argument (case) stands, and I have heavily refuted the KCA, and this round sealed the deal for the last argument. He, indeed, dropped arguments (by accident, we all do it). He dropped the POE (misinterpretation), the hotel (I understand, but they do not fully cross apply), and therefore has not fulfilled his BOP, which he said he had in the comments before I accepted. As my opponent did not fulfill the BOP, and I refuted his arguments, I urge a CON vote. _____[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.vexen.co.uk... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...