A creator of the universe exists.

In this debate, I shall state my case through the refutation of my opponent's arguments and prove that a creator of the universe does not exist, and isn't to be accepted as a valid explanation for the origin of the universe. Without further ado, I shall begin my refutation. ARGUMENT FROM REASONWhat this argument claims is that if naturalism (according to which there was no purpose of/in the creation of the universe) is true, aboutness/intentionality cannot exist. Intentionality, of course, exists. Human beings can think rationally, make claims and validate said claims. However, this does not in any way refute naturalism. There was, indeed, no purpose in the creation of the universe. The universe was created in chaos, not in order, as the result of an instantaneous expansion called the Big Bang (which most surely happened, as I will show in this exposition). The problem with this argument is the statement that aboutness "could not have emerged" and that "non-reason can't produce reason". This is very much a bare assertion. Why could it not have? It is a matter of evolution - just as organic chemical compounds were created from non-organic ones to start the evolution of life (the possiblity of said creation was proven by the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952. ) [1], humans have evolved through natural selection to be able to think rationally and validate claims. Indeed, of the many living species we encounter today, some can, to a certain extent, think rationally, some have primitive instincts as guidance, while some are organisms with no ability of thought at all. This represents the chain of natural selection. Through time, humans have risen to the top of this chain and developed rational thought. The thought processes in the human brain are indeed based on chemical reactions. For example, take the emotion of interpersonal love, and its associtaed feelings. Human beings feel it, it is an emotion. They also think about it. They are able to validate that they are in love. However, that feeling, and the realization of said feeling, is a results of chemicals being released in the human brain. [2]The same is with ordinary human thought processes. Finally, there is no reason why "mindless" processes cannot lead to rational thought. Why should the correlation not stand? The AfR simply calls the correlation wrong, providing no reason why it should be so. It is necessary for such an argument to give evidence as to why its premises are a valid way to refute naturalism - otherwise it fails. Thus, it fails in the very assertion of the premise, while I have shown through examples that there is no reason why "mindless processes" couldn't produce rationality/aboutness. THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTThe teleological argument attemps to state that the universe is fine-tuned to support life, and as such implies a creator. This is false, as I will show. First, I must address the issue of probability, which was mentioned by my opponent. Low probability does not imply a creator. For example, there are 17x10^9 know exosolar planets in the Milky Way galaxy [3]. That is 17.000.000.000. Life has appeared only on one. We are talking about a ratio of 1 : 17.000.000.000, which implies incredibly low probability. However, life appeared, naturally, and only by happenstance at that. This brings us to where the teleological argument fails - the universe is not fine tuned. Not counting our Solar system, we know of, as stated, 17x10^9 planets, out of which life exists on only one planet. Said planet, Earth, went through a long path of trial and error to reach the creation of life as we know it now. If a creator created the universe to contain and fit life, then he did a pretty lousy job; and had to rely on chance. Furthermore, let us take a look at natural forces and constants. I'll take the four most important forces as an example - the gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear force. Research has shown that a universe without the existence of the weak nuclear force would still support life. Even certain values of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces could be changes significantly, and still allow the existence of life. Finally, even if we do allow ourselves the luxury of considering this argument true, why should the answer be a creator? How does this imply one? For a theory to be considered an acceptable explanation, it must be falsifiable, which this one is not. There is no evidence that any of these arguments (especially the first) being true would imply a creator, and such evidence must be given if those arguments are to stand (see Russell's teapot [4]). Thus, we cannot take the idea of a creator to be a valid explanation for the origin of life. "What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. "- Cristopher HitchensTHE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTThis argument asserts that all that began to exist has a cause, and thus, the universe has a cause of existence. This statement is false, as I will show. To begin with, the first premise is a fallacy of bare assertion. Just because, indeed, on Earth, everything has a cause, that doesn't mean it must in the entire universe. Something being so-called "common sense" doesn't make it true. Also, I must address the problem of infinity. Infinity cannot exist quanitatively or be reduced to a number. However, it was observed to be possible. Not only is it utilised in everyday mathematics according to all laws and principles, but it also existed in the Big Bang singularity. The singularity was a point with an infinite potential mass which would infinitely slow (effectively stop) time. Thus, temporally, the singularity existed infinitely long prior to the Big Bang, and would continue to exist infinitely had it not happened. [5]According to Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty [6], it is perfectly possible that, in the quantum vacuum, virtual particles materialize and dematerialize at random with no cause. This happens in a vacuum, which contains no matter, and yet, we observe these particles simply materializing, and even emitting detectable energy. Such materializations are known as quantum fluctuations, and, to quote Taner Edis, they " [quantum events] have a way of just happening. .. " [7]. This, finally, leads us to how we know the Big Bang happened and how we know the universe came from nothing. Three types of universes exist: flat, open and closed. The flat type allows the possibility of a universe materializing ex nihilo, by means of quantum fluctuations. It was proven that the universe is flat by the same means by which we know that the Big Bang occured - cosmic microwave background radiation. The Big Bang requires a visible emission of radiation coming at the Earth from all sides (fitting the definition of microwave background radiation), and analysis of this radiation has shown an expansion compatible with what we call Big Bang indeed occured. This radiation was used to prove which type of universe we live in. As is known, due to the laws of the speed of light, we can see emissions that occured in the past. The "wall" of CMB radiation is an emission approximately 10^5 light years away. As matter enters this wall, it collapses. In a flat universe, the scale of entrance of matter before its collapse is equal to 1° (in open and closed universes, it is 0.5° or 2°). [8]An experiment was conducted to measure this scale and the result found was that the scale of entrance of matter into said wall in our universe is exactly 1°. We are thus sure the universe is flat. We are sure it could have begun from nothing, by means of a quantum fluctuation in the Big Bang singularity. When we know this possibility exists, as well as the cause of the Big Bang, to quote Stephen Hawking:"Science makes God unnecessary. " [9]After this point, it is irrelevant who considers what to be "ridiculous". Back to pro. Sources in comments due to lack of space.