Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is the Best Explanation for the Beginning of the Universe

I am going to try to not waste time this round, and get right to the point.C1) Theistic HypothesisAll I need is one argument showing God does not exist to win the debate. Therefore if I succeed, then this section has no bearing on the resolution.C2) Reasons to Believe in Divine CreationArgument for Atheism"My opponent does a lot of philosophical work in this section but ignores possibilities as God may have created greater beings and because they are greater they are not contained in our physical world but beyond it." - PenningtonThe above is a red-herring. There could be other universes with more great species but, that would not change the fact that humans exist. If a maximally great being exists, then every possible world where there is species contains only species which are greater than humans. Keep in mind the below:*If a person does action 'A' at time t, then what that person also did was not do any other actions they could have been doing, instead of action 'A' at time tThis means that God would never create humans, he would have chosen a more great species every time if he is to stay consistent with his nature. If humans exist, then this means he choose less great over more great at least once in his life; which would negate the original idea that we were discussing a maximally great being. Therefore, if a maximally great being exists humans would exist in no physical reality. This makes my opponent's response trivial, because even if there are other realities with greater species that would not change the fact that we still exist. Humans should not even exist in any possible world if there is a maximally great being, because we symbolize a choice this being supposedly made choosing less great over more great. This conflicts with maximally greatness. Therefore, my Argument from Atheism still stands in light of the above objection."Pro also ignores reasoning why humans are here to begin with, which will involve theistic teachings." - PenningtonIt does not matter what theistic teachings are; the only thing that matters is what would stay consistent with God's maximally great nature or not. Human beings existing (less great) if a maximally great being does makes no sense. He would have the greatest possible species existing in every possible world, as a maximally great being must make choices consistent with his nature. Less great over more great is not a choice consistent with a maximally great being."Humans rule the earth because of intellect and Con has not shown we are not the greatest possible species for the conditions the earth was created for." - PenningtonYes I have, and Pro is being intellectually dishonest for saying such a thing. If we can conceive of a greater species than us for our environment, then if God exists; he could conceive of an even greater species than us. Take Steven Spielberg and his movie Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind [1] for example, the movie contains a much more powerful and benevolent species (powerful and benevolent are great making properties). If we can conceive of it, then God could conceive of an even greater species. A species like that, or greater, would exist in every possible world instead of us where there is species existing if there really is a being who makes choices consistent with maximal greatness."Con ignores that for perfection to exist there must also exist imperfection otherwise perfection has no comparison." - PenningtonThen this means that if God is the most perfect being, there should be a less great species than ourselves instead of us in every possible cause to have a larger margin between his creations and him. The fact that we exist here, instead of some lesser species, still disproves God if your theory above is correct. My argument could work in reverse as well given the objection above. Also, my opponent made a contradictory statement. Saying that imperfection existing is required for perfection is like saying a perfectly spherical cube existing is required for logic. The notion of such a claim is an absurdity and outrageous."There can be no opposites unless both propositions are available. In perfect love there must exist free-will and choice to be imperfect." - PenningtonThis contradicts Theism. If God exists, he cannot choose to be imperfect....However, he still has free will. This means that it is possible for free will to exist without making the choice to be imperfect. Because my opponent misrepresented my argument and had lack luster responses; my argument still stands. The resolution is negated off of this alone. "Con assumes he shows a maximally great being does not exist but his theory has holes and if it does then he has conceded this point. This argument is part of theistic hypothesis." - PenningtonAll the holes have been filled. The only holes how are the ones involving the responses to my arguments."Notice the resolution says, Divine Ex Nihilo." - PenningtonExactly. Pro has to argue that the universe came from nothing to win this debate."This means that nothing came from a divine source which is something." - PenningtonPro is confusing Creatio Ex Nihilo with Creatio Ex Deo. He is defending the wrong position, this is rather odd. The universe comes from nothing if Creatio Ex Nihilo is true, and the universe comes from God if Creatio Ex Deo is true [2]. "This means there was a divine source and time, space, and matter came from that source when it had previously only been the divine source in existence. Con cannot object with his own resolution." - PenningtonThere is no reason to believe the universe came from a divine source, over Timeless Immaterial Potential. Also Divine Creatio Ex Nihilo is impossible as that would require God. My Argument from Atheism shows there is no God. "I concede con has provided a reasonable theory but one point is lacking substance, intelligence." - PenningtonMy cause requires no minds, therefore it does not need a mind (this should be self-evident)"Con has produced a theory exactly like Divine Creatio but his theory has no brain, no mind, no intelligence. His theory supposedly gave us genetic moral values and duties or we simply have lack for them all together. His theory gives no explanation for intelligence and separate value from natural animal instinct." - PenningtonEvolution of the brain explains that [3]. All that is needed is Natural Selection [4]; no mind. Why does the brain exist? Under my hypothesis the developing brain would be a required function of such a universe. The mindI have already negated the resolution. so this section is trivial.Moral valuesThe only standard there needs to be for morality is the one we set for ourselves. There is no good reason to invoke anything external.Conclusion When Pro uses the Ontological Argument, he accepts "maximally great being" as the definition of God. I showed that a maximally great being cannot exist. Since this is true; the Divine cannot exist. The resolution has been negated off of this alone.Also Pro assumes a mind is a better explanation, but everything is a required function with regards to my cause. This means, that the only required is the required function which is no mind. Since God could have not created the universe; this leaves questions as to why us specifically exist. With my hypothesis, the universe is a required function of such a cause. Also, the universe would not come from nothing in any sense. The universe would have to come from nothing for my opponents argument to work (which is extremely counter intuitive). For those two reasons, my explanation is much superior. The resolution has been discarded to never land.Sources [1] http://www.imdb.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://thebrain.mcgill.ca...[4] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...