Atheism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur.

First, I would like to ask my opponent whether or not plusses look more optomistic than minusses. Second, I don't have a problem with this new definition of "god". ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MY OPPONENT CONCEDES My opponent dedicates an entire paragraph to concede the debate. Says my opponent: "Some things don't have a reason. For example, according to my opponent, god exists. Why does god exist? Sure, we 'know' that He does in fact exist. But why? The reason is, there is no reason. Some things just don't have a reason." In my opponent's attempt to shape this into a stereotypical religious debate, he conceded. While saying that theism relies on the belief that nothing is needed to have anything occur, my opponent concedes that he believes that "some things don't have a reason". So, atheism relies on ignorance or arrogance of causation. Atheism cannot logically explain why mass bends space without admitting that it needs no reason. In conclusion, my opponent trying to defend atheism forced him to rely on the argument that nothing is needed to have something occur. We can stop now, and say that I have won the debate. However, that would be boring. For that reason, I am also going to refute a few of my opponent's points: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "JUST FOR FUN" REBUTTALS My opponent claims that the original "singularity rapidly expanded and the universe was filled with matter and energy." However, this argument again relies on the belief that nothing is needed to cause this. In my opponent's rebuttals of the lack of causation in the atheist view of "the beginning", he proposes four theories, all of which agree with the resolution. 1) He proposes that the big bang was the first event. In proposing this, he proposes that nothing caused this. 2) He proposes that there exists a quantum field that can create or destroy matter at will. This contradicts the Law of Conservation of Mass. Further, this proposed field itself has no cause. 3) He proposes that there exists "massive four-dimensional membranes" that "move about" and "smash into each other". This membrane, again, has no cause. 4) He proposes that some big crunch created the big bang. However, such a crunch would require its own bang, which requires its own crunch, etc. He says that the cycle "continues indefinitely", but that there is no cause for matter and energy. All of these atheist explanations rely on arrogance of causation. "Simply because we do not know what causes something doesn't mean the cause has to be God." This is irrelevant. Again, I wish to avoid a stereotypical atheism vs theism debate. I urge my opponent to stay on topic. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SOURCES My opponent's first source links to a broad outline. I would like to know EXACTLY where my opponent recieved this information. (http://www.superstringtheory.com...) My opponent's second source claims that atheists will deny that everything has a cause. It says, "A second line of attack(which happens to be the only logical attack) [for atheists] on the first cause argument is to deny that everything that has a beginning has a cause". So, his source (http://www.existence-of-god.com...) concedes that atheists use the argument that "not everything has a cause" to battle causation. I would also like to point out that my opponent's contentions are based off of the arguments on this website: http://www.existence-of-god.com... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I await a rebuttal.