A God must have created the universe.

RebbutalsRound 2 Argument 1These points address the standard version of the Big Bang. None of my arguments in my round 2 use that model, they do not have the same problems as this.Round 2 Argument 2There are 2 problems here. First, it does not deal with knowledge (which is the purpose of this debate). Second, this is a false dichodomy.Pro assumes here that there are only 2 religious positions, either Christianity or atheism.The reason this is flawed is because there are an infinite amount of possible gods. Not only this, but there are also a lot of denominations of certain religions which have slight variations, including how to go to heaven.So, if there are an infinite amount of possible gods and an infinite amount of ways to go to heaven (if there is a heaven) then it would logically follow that everyone would have about an equal chance of going to heaven.Not only that, but changing belief requires evidence. For example, if I pointed a gun at your head and told you that you would die if you didn't start believing in the invisible elephant that is right in front of you that I will kill you. The odds are the same with Pascal's Wager, good outcomes for belief and bad outcomes for doubt. Now, will you honestly believe in this invisible elephant? No, it is not possible for one to simply believe. One needs evidence to change their disposition.Round 3 Argument 1Here, Pro argues for Intelligent Design by proposing there is infinite complexity.Pro makes a common mistake that humans were a goal of evolution. It does not matter what the chances of humans evolving were as evolution does not have an end goal.Now, these things can be explained through evolution. As Pro listed too many things to address all the things, so I will simply list links to address all the things he listed (so that I do not run out of character space just refuting all of these points).Eyes- http://www.scientificamerican.com...Circulatory system- http://www.sciencedaily.com...Heart- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Reproduction- http://www.nhm.ac.uk...Limbs- http://www.nature.com...Lungs- http://evolution.berkeley.edu...Kidney- purdy.satitpatumwan.ac.th/.../Evolution%20of%20the%20Kidney.pptBones- http://www.jstor.org...Nerves- http://scienceblogs.com...Human skin- http://www.amnh.org...Brain- http://www.newscientist.com...Immune system- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Muscles- http://www.sciencedaily.com...And even if evolution of Earth is false, which it probably isn't, that does not rule out Panspermia.Round 3 Argument 2Here is where Pro argues for teleology. The problem is that teleology actually supports naturalism as one would not expect life to exist where it was not permitted under naturalism.Video to the side for further explanation.http://www.youtube.com...Teleology also assumes that the universe could be any other way, that there isn't a multiverse, and that there is only 1 dimension (instead of 2 which would allow for every possible past, present, and future to exist at once).Round 3 Pro's RebuttalsFirst Law of Thermodynamics:The Tenselss argument that I made makes it so the universe never began, so there is no problem there. Besides, this issue is avoided under a zero energy universe(as the net energy would not have changed, just like how 1+(-1)=0), and that is the type of universe that we live in.http://www.livescience.com...Relativity:Space expanding does not violate relativity as relativity deals with motion, but the universe is not in motion, it is expanding.http://scienceline.org...Entropy (2nd law of Thermodynaics):This is solved due to the expanding universe creating pockets of equalibrium and the universe's expansion changing the point of equalibrium.http://machineslikeus.com...Not expanding universe:This does not refute the tenseless argument that I made. Also, the evidence that you suggested does not conclusively show that the universe is not expanding. The evidence for the expanding universe is much more conclusive. More tests would have to be done before confirming this, especially since the actual abstract of the paper says,"We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. However, we believe this result is more than sufficient reason to examine this combination of hypotheses further."Nothing creates everything:I addressed this issue in my round 2, and you have not yet refuted any of my premises or arguments. Singularity:The singularity would not be an issue under the Krauss Argument and Tenseless argument (as it would be non-existent), and the Hawking argument explains why there doesn't need to be a cause. This poses no problem.Force behind the Big Bang:I addressed this in my second round. In 2 of the 3 arguments there would not need to be a force (in fact, there could not be a force) behind the big bang. In the other, quantum physics explains it.Lithium:More recent findings showed that there isn't actually a lithium problem in the universe. Also, this would not impact the tenseless argument I made in round 2.http://www.popsci.com...ConclusionsI have addressed all of Pro's arguments and rebuttals, he has not yet addressed the actual arguments that I proposed in my second round.