Resolved: Some type of creator outside of the universe exists.

Resolved: Some type of divine being exists. The resolution asks us today wether a divine being exists! This is most certainly a mind boggling question but never the less debatable. The resolution concerns itself primarly with the virtue of existence. My value criteron will be morality and reasoning. The affirmative supports existence far better than the negative. This will be shown threw my 2 contentions, 1. There are good reasons to think God exists 2. There are not comparbly good reasons to believe God doesn't exist. I will leave my openant to support my second contention, but my first contention will be shown threw 3 arguements, 1. The origin of the universe,2.Pascals Wager and 3rd, Objective moral values exist 1st Arguement: My first arguement involves the origin of the universe and the need for a being outside of the universe to exist. Lets consider the following facts: E=MC^2 What does this mean? Well it means energy equels the mass in realtion to the speed of light squared. Because of the law of Conservation of Energy we know the universe has had the sam amount of energy throughout its existance. We also know that when energy began to exist so did space/time. So to the law of cause and effect the universe needs a cause that exists outside of universe therefore not being bound by its laws. 2nd Arguement Pascals Wager Lets assume that God exists if he does exist and you believe in him you are good, if not you are bad. If he doesn't then you are status qou no matter if you believe him or not. Therefore since according to Unitarianism we should judge an action by its concequences, the concequences are far better to believe than to disbelieve because the concequences when being weigh are better because if God doesn't exist its status qou but if he does the concequences are better of the affirmative. 3rd. The Moral Arguement My last arguement is stating that objective moral values exist this is relevant because without a being to Ground these values then we have no basis for them on pure opinion which by nature is a fallacy.Also klets do a popular thought experiment: Imagine in 2020 a world dictator arises who is twice as persuasive and twice as strong as Hitler and the Nazis ever were. Imagine he initiated and won WWIII and continued to go throughout the world and gradually and systematically destroy nearly all people other than those of his same descent. He experiments, tortures, and kills all babies who are of races other than his own. Suppose his people flourished, curing diseases with help from their medical experiments on the children. Suppose they thrived by gradually destroying every other nation on earth and taking over their territory and resources, keeping some as slaves to work as labourers in their concentration camps. Suppose the world population was increasing at a steady, controlled rate because of the government breeding programs and immediate termination of unsanctioned pregnancies. On a naturalistic view ,what is wrong with this situation? If 99% of the people left alive on earth believed that torture was OK, would that make it OK? There would be no basis to say that there is anything wrong with the situation. The human species would be flourishing and healthy with lots to eat and producing plenty of offspring for the next generation. I would argue that in a naturalistic explanation for morals would fail to see anything wrong with this. In conclusion the Affirmative supports the value of existance threw morality and reasn far-better than the negative will. I can only urge a affirmative vote for todays debate.