The Big Bang had to have been started by a designer.

Thanks for your response, it has been a very productive debate:I must respond to you stating that I have not clearly defined my first premise: Something cannot come from nothing therefore nothing cannot exist. I must disagree with you and say that I have explained it as thoroughly as I could. The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. What exists in nothing? Well, nothing. I've explained this already and I would be repeating myself. It it is ridiculous to think that something could possibly erupt from a non-existent form. The very effect of the beginning of the universe must have an adequate cause, and so on and so forth. One piece of evidence is the fact that the universe exists. To explain this fact, we are faced with a couple of choices. Either something came from nothing, or something has always existed. If the latter is true, then either matter is eternal or mind (intelligence) is eternal. Which seems more plausible? Inanimate objects and forms being eternal, or a mind that put it here? It is the simple principle of cause and effect.The laptop I am typing on did not pop into existence. An intellectual mind created it. The statue outside of my college dorm window did not pop into existence. It was created by intellectual minds. This universe is no exception. Just because it is bigger than us, and not created by us, does not exclude the possibility that something put it here. Something far bigger than our imaginations. Maybe our universe is the equivalent of a cell? Floating around in something much bigger, and that something is travelling in something infinitely bigger than ourselves as well. Can we prove that? No. Can we disprove that? No. The questions posed by the Big Bang do not all go away even if people make up stories about oscillating universes and multiple universes. We still have to confront the fact that all the talk about universes presupposes the existence of an even more fundamental reality, namely the existence of physical laws governing the course of the universe. What are these laws, and where do they come from? What determines them? (http://en.wikipedia.org...) This question about law increases the mystery. We need to ask, not only about the galaxies and the stars, but about the laws. The galaxies and the stars can be traced back to the concentration of energy in the Big Bang. But what about the laws, which are just as essential to our understanding? In a sense they are even more essential, because even the postulation a universe or universes before the Big Bang presupposes the existence of these laws, which govern all time. This is why a creator is to be assumed to exist. Where does the complexity of our universe come from? A mindless, inanimate singularity? Or a creator that put forth the motion of this singularity that set us into our positions today?I am sorry that I may not answer your question in the previous round. The question seems redundant, and I believe you should reword it differently. Since this is the last round feel free to message me and I'll be happy to reply. Once again, I apologize. I read it a few times and could not make sense of it. Perhaps it was my brain - too late at night typing this and class in the morning! Ah!Summary:-The continuous tracing of origins would be far too vast to simply determine that a jumbled mess of matter created everything we see today. Yes it IS science, but not JUST science. There is something bigger.-There is no evidence that the universe has existed forever. If it has, then the concept of eternal can be used in the argument for a deity. -Nothing is nothing as Parmenides has stated. Something cannot come from a non-existent state. It doesn't make sense, and trying to make sense of it is pointless.-There are many other explanations to this universe's origins besides it being always there and not being there before the Big Bang, but that does not exclude the possibility of a creator at all. This creator is supposedly outside of the tiny perspective of human sense and scientific explanation, and has overseen everything that we are familar with today.-This is not an an argument for any specific god, but rather a generic intelligent designer.Thank you to my opponent for such a thoughtful debate. You have proved yourself to be intelligent and thoughtful and though I disagree with you, I must say you use many valid points in your rebuttals. Farewell!