Fail. The laws of physics which imply that something must be set in motion apply within the universe, not to the universe. Hence, the universe could come into existence if the laws that exist in the nothingness, on the Brane, or in the cosmic foam (whatever model/hypothesis you wish to use). Hence, no first mover has been shown necessary. Repeating #1 doesn't make it any more valid Fail. The being ceases to exist in that form. The molecules which comprise it continue to exist, either as matter or as energy (since matter and energy can be converted into eachother). This, too is a repeatof #1 in different terms and all it achieves is calling The Big Bang... God. Self-refuting. It says that some things are greater than others, not that there is necessarily always a thing greater than any given thing. Secondly, the second sentence fails- it actually is great only in comparison to a lesser thing. Thirdly, the premise necessitates something greater than God and something greater still ad infinitum. First sentence: Demonstrate that they serve any ultimate end. Second sentence: Again, this is assuming some ultimate end is present. I reject this axiom and demand evidence of any 'ultimate purpose'. Third sentence: Back to ID being religion.... Forth sentence: not a valid logical conclusion from the above nonsense. There ya go- TA was an idiot and his 5 assertions are refuted- again.