You need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe.

Rebuttal 1"My argument would be that the first definition should not be categorized as a definition of "nothing"You can not say this type of "nothing" is not "nothing". By the very definition of nothing, we know this to not be true. When you stand out at sunrise and look out at a cascading background and you see just the sun setting. You could say "nothing" is there but the sun. Whether or not there is matter and particles within the air, empty space is still nothing. If you are standing still and a hamburger popped of of the air in front of you, you would say" that came from nothing". What we do not know or can not know is what laws in which the universe operated under when the big bang occurred. We can logically assume things but there is no way to rule out this nothing as the nothing that existed prior to the big bangAs far as refuting the quantum physics argument or brief definition i gave, your argument does not refute anything. Classical and quantum mechanics are real and bear the definitions which I have shown. That is like saying, I don't want to believe the sun is bright. You can chose not to believe that quantum physics in fact operates under the scale of atoms, but it is an objective fact. I have even shown where the theory that supported fluctuations and patterns that can arrive from nothing won the Nobel prize. If this were not a true statement, it would be illogical in itself to think the theory made it to the level in which in did. This is also supportd by a multitude of stuides in which I cited. I will even cite some more to show that this in an objective facthttps://www.simonsfoundation.org...http://www.thenational.ae...http://old.richarddawkins.net...http://www.youtube.com...Rebuttal 2"Many things are scientifically impossible to prove, but we explore their possibilities as a part of vital investigation to answer the mysteries within our time. Thoughts about what existed before the universe have been thought of from Plato onward. Top Down Causation for instance is exploring this very frontier."He states that the definition of nothing that I gave for the second definition and which is the definition that he classifies as nothing could be a possibility. This is entirely the case but proves my point. Let's assume like my adversary thinks that all the laws of physics and mechanics came into existence at the big bang. This could also be a possibility, but so could the fact that the laws in which we operate under now, existed prior to the big bang. For arguments sake lets say hes right, and the nothing before the big bang is a different nothing. We can draw two logical assumptions from this idea(1) God made the universe(2) Something can come from nothing. So now I ask you this, which would be the most logical? I have already shown that the nothing that we now know can produce particles and matter from no where. Is it such a giant step to assume that even if the nothing before the big bang operated under a set of different laws, that the same possibility might occur. If we can produce something from nothing now, it is quite logical to think the same thing could occur under a different set of laws.The one thing we know for sure is that what ever set of laws we were operating under, it does not give credibility to the idea of a God. Even if the laws of physics as we know it were shifted and changed, this would only change some of the rules in how the universe operates. This would not give evidence for a God, it would just change the variables around us. That is where we can invoke Occam s razor. If something is logically sound, there is no need to add a different variable to the mix. This is still a gap argument no matter how we look at it and bears this line of thought that I often point outSammy is a turtleTurtles are greenTherefore Sammy is greenThis is an accurate observation but is incorrect because it does not take into consideration all the variables that could play a factor in what color a turtle is. The point I was making in my original stance is this. If we insert God into this definition of nothing and claim that he made the universe, we could insert any variable in place of God and the theory would still work. (I)(we)(it)(santa)(tom cruise)(jesus)(allah) made the universe. No matter which variable we put in there, the theory still remains the same and is illogical no matter how we look at it. Rebuttal 3Top Down causation / fine tuning"Top Down Causation makes an attempt to examine the patterns, and the complexity of everything around us. It sees the cause and does not ignore it as irrelevant. Cause is as much a part as effect. If we examine the effects of the universe so closely, why do we not examine the cause? One who believes that the universe birthed itself, irrationally turns a blind eye to cause. Cause, does not matter, only effect. I argue that this is an illogical view of the universe. Cause is not to be ignored."Since this was very vague and did not offer much evidence, I am going to assume his view on this is similar to the KCA. He is stating because of what we can examine around us within the universe, why not examine the cause. Then the next logical step he takes is to assume the cause is a God.This also bears a huge similarity to the fine tuning argument for God. Life and the universe is fine tuned, and if anything changed by (x) value we would not exist. So the most logical assumption is God. This seems to be the line of thought with this statement he has presented. This line of logic bears a few major flaws. One of which is that the argument depends on regarding humans as “special”, as though a universe without humans would be improper in some way. Thus the argument is simply illogical in some ways and takes as an axiom (that is what we consider to be that humans are "special") and uses that for what it aims to prove. Just because we think we are special, does not mean we are special to the universe. A recent study says this "Entities that are peculiar to and characteristic of their environment are exactly what you would expect from non-intelligent, natural processes. Intelligent design could produce either outcome: inhabitants that are well-fitted to their environment or inhabitants that are not (as in zoos). Non-intelligent processes could only produce the former. Thus, the fact that the universe appears to be “fine tuned” to produce its inhabitants is a direct prediction of atheism, but not of theism. Thus the fine-tuning argument actually argues for an atheistic universe."Who says the universe is tuned for life? As far as we know, intelligent life only occurs in one to the billions of the universes around us. It’s not the case that the universe is teeming with life, is it? If someone intelligent were going to design a universe to host life, they could do a way better job than by inventing our universe.The fact is we are just one species in millions and millions that evolved to the point where we could actually wonder why. At some point our galaxy will collide with another and we will be extinct just like most of the other species within the universe. This universe is not fined tuned for us, we are here by sheer probability and chance as evolution shows us. He wants to exam the cause, and the cause is quite simple. mathematical probability is the only reason we exist, and the main reason that we have to believe we exist. In closingMy adversary has not met his BOP and has not shown that a God in fact does exist. He has provided assumptions that he concludes are logical in order to support his statement. I have shown how something can come from nothing, and how this is an objective fact. With this being true I think the most viable conclusion that we can draw is that we do not need a God in order to explain how the universe began.