Existence of Creator- Yes or No, BoP on Pro

In order to keep with the rules outlines in R1, I will not provide any specific refutation to my opponent's R2 arguments. In order to do this, I have not yet read their R2 argument, and will not do so until it is time for me to plan my R3 argument. Since we have agreed that the burden of proof is on Pro, my case will be primarily refutation. However, in order to make sure I have said plenty, I will provide explanations to why commonly used theistic arguments are incorrect. If any of these happen to be the arguments provided by Pro, this is by coincidence- I have not yet read their R2 argument. Theistic arguments essentially fall into two categories: observing the physical world and trying to use this to justify the existence of a God, and arguments based on philosophy alone. I will call these "empirical" and "philosophical" arguments. Empirical theistic arguments always neglect some aspect of the physical world. For instance, the well-known Kalam Cosmological argument (see source 1) attempts to apply conventional, macroscopic causality to systems which needn't obey it. For instance, in quantum mechanics, there is a phenomenon called "spontaneous pair production" where a matter and anti-matter pair of particles spontaneously emerge, without cause, and then destroy each other. This happens all the time within the universe, and it violates conventional, macroscopic causality. Likewise, the fine-tuning argument (see source 3) neglects the fact that most of the physical constants are defined *in terms of one another*. For instance, Coulomb's constant (see source 4) is always equal to the reciprocal of the product of 4 with pi with the permittivity of free space (see source 5) regardless of the actual value of these numbers. This reduces the solution to the origin of inhabitable universes from a non-polynomial (NP) to a polynomial (P) problem (see source 6). Essentially, there's no longer any need to invoke a deity. Philosophical theistic arguments are often entirely consistent, but they prove something which is not an intelligent creator. For instance, the Ontological argument (see source 7) is essentially as follows: P1: God is the most powerful being. P2: It is more powerful to exist than to not exist. C: Therefore, God must exist. [Sometimes the word "powerful" is replaced with "perfect", to the same effect]. The second premise feeds into the first, and basically results in the statement that "The most powerful being that exists must exist". This is obvious, but it doesn't prove the existence of an intelligent creator. So, ask yourself, readers: has Pro overlooked something about the physical world? If so, I am currently studying for a physics degree, and will point out any oversights made by Pro in my R3 speech. Has Pro just provided a bunch of circular arguments, or proven something obvious (that the most powerful being which exists, exists) but not the existence of a creator? Given my experience with theistic arguments, it is likely that they have. As the burden of proof is on Pro, my argument doesn't really require any positive claims to substantiate. However, I will point out that the origin of the universe has been convincingly explained by the Big Bang Theory (see source 8); there was a time when we had no explanation for the origin of the universe, and so "God" was the answer people jumped to. Now, we have the Big Bang Theory to explain that, and we have evidence that it needn't obey conventional, macroscopic causality (see the end of my 4th paragraph). If you are convinced (and you should be) that the Big Bang Theory explains the universe without the need for a God, then you necessarily agree with my case. If, however, you are not convinced, then you can still agree with me if you are also not convinced by Pro- e.g. if you're not convinced that the universe was made by a creator, nor that it was made by the Big Bang- you're still on the side which concludes that a creator does not exist (or that there's no reason to think that one does). Hence, you agree with my stance, as Con. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the R3 rebuttals, as I feel these will be the most interesting part of the debate. Sources: 1) http://www.strongatheism.net... 2) https://physics.stackexchange.com... 3) http://www.reasonablefaith.org... 4) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... 5) https://en.wikipedia.org... 6) http://www.claymath.org... 7) http://www.iep.utm.edu... 8) http://www.space.com...