Debate: Existence of matter proves a creator exists
Side: False

Thats very true, we don't. That is why agnosticism is the only rationally justifiable belief.I do take issue with the latter statement. I was of the understanding that pure agnosticism is literally "I don't know if god exists, it's 50/50" or something along those lines, correct? If we are going to use this logic, we should be agnostic about all claims of beings that supposedly exist, whether its nyan cat, unicorns, vampires, werewolves, zeus, thor, etc. To most if not all people, the possible existence of some/most of these beings is laughable, and rightly so. This is why I believe it is better to disbelieve unless shown sufficient evidence, than to give the possibility of existence at the flip of a coin. I am an Agnostic Atheist, by the way. Meaning I do not absolutely rule out or rule in favor of anything, I am always open to any possibility so long as the evidence warrants that belief/position. The atheism part comes in because I lack belief in the supernatural, including gods. I believe most people who go by the title "atheist" actually mean agnostic atheist, I know Richard Dawkins holds this position. Moreover, just as logic and piety, from the Euthyphro Problem, can only be answered by advocating an eternal and absolute God, which in turn means that it too is eternal and absolute, concludes that so is time.The Euthryphor dilemma is a topic I am not very famliar with. I might read up on it sometime, or perhaps you should post a debate on it and crowd source what people think. Everything, including the natural and supernatural have time. Time is only a measurement.But we have yet to conclude that anything supernatural even exists. So far, every single mystery that has ever been solved by mankind, has always had a naturalistic explanation. Not once have we conclusively shown that there was some supernatural phenomena going on. It may change in the future (I highly doubt it), but the only consistent evidence we have for the supernatural is personal testimony from people. we know of only from our limited knowledge that nature has a beginning and end.I would argue that we do not know that nature has a beginning and end, if by nature you mean the universe by extension. What is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole. I mean, it might be true of the whole, but it's not a rule. Therefore, God, who is not apart of the universe, does not require having a creation. Just as Aristotle said, there must be an immovable mover. However, this immovable mover must have enough ability to move the entire universe.If there must be an immovable mover, or an uncaused cause if you will, why not just say it was the universe that self created itself? It gets rid of what appears to be an unnecessary appendage. Why have God be the uncaused cause, when you can have the universe be the uncaused cause? To be clear, both the idea of god existing for eternity and then randomly one day decides to create a universe, and the idea of the universe self creating are both confusing for me to comprehend. My position is I simply don't know, I haven't encountered evidence that would strongly sway me in one direction or the other, although I do tend to stick with science over religious doctrine. In this case, the creationists claim that god is the uncaused cause. And physicists like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking both claim that the universe self created. The physicists appear to be more correct, if only through Occam's razor as far as I've researched, which is to say not a whole lot on what these two physicists have written. I'm not denying that. That is where faith comes in, just like how we all have faith in everything we believe in; for everything comes to down to a base that has no evidence.I would like to clarify something though, as far as I am aware, I do not have any faith at least in the religious sense of the word. When I say "How do you know that's true?" and a religious person responds "you just have to have faith", I take it that they are saying they don't have evidence but choose to believe anyways. If I have faith, it is purely in the sense that I believe something, not that it's without evidence. All of my beliefs, to my knowledge, are justified through evidence. As for everything coming down to a base that has no evidence, I would disagree. Everything goes down to our senses, which are self evident in and of themselves. Nothing has evidence; but we try to understand as best we can by what we means are available to us, which includes the Laws of Thermodynamics, which of course could be wrong for all we know. Everything comes down to a basis of faith. Why do some people believe in evolution (I don't want to get into an evolution debate, it is only an example)? Why do some people believe in the Laws of Thermodynamics? Why do some people believe in talking snakes? The reason is this: we can't know anything with 100% certainty, including the things that we believe to be correct. Anything but agnosticism is unscientific and illogical, because there is no way we can truly know.I would disagree, there is lots of evidence already in our possession, and much more waiting to be discovered. And as for everything coming down to faith, I would disagree. Everything comes down to justified belief in my opinion. You are correct to assert that we cannot know anything with 100% certainty. (I find it annoying and counterproductive when people say "are you making that assertion with 100% certainty?" or statements similar to that) Even with that being said, we can still reach high degrees of certainty. Permanent agnosticism is unscientific and illogical in my opinion, there is no basis upon which to make the case for god existing as 50/50. Not to mention, why is it limited only to god's existence? There is no objective reason why this shouldn't apply to any mythical creature that has been claimed to exist throughout human history. I am of the opinion that agnostic atheism is the most scientific and logical position to maintain, because it is lack of belief until evidence is provided. If there is no evidence, why put the chances of existence of god at 50%?