The big bang happened

I demonstrated in my last round that time doesn't really exist based on the Toy Universe experiment, and thus, nothing ever happens. This is due to the fact that there is no time unit in the Wheeler De-Witt equation which describes the universe, and the experiments that confirm this (to a reasonable extent). My opponent said that if nothing ever happens, we wouldn't exist. This is false, it just means that we exist timelessly. Nothing happens, as in events, but events don't need to happen in order for people or things to exist. Therefore, my opponent's reasoning is fallacious. Things and people don't require time, but events that "happen" do require time. Is The Universe Expanding? The universe is not expanding. In order for the universe to expand, it needs time for it to expand (temporal becoming, more specifically). Therefore, by making the claim that the universe is expanding, my opponent is begging the question against a timeless universe, and naively assuming time exists and isn't an illusion. Also, posting pictures is not an argument. Just because my opponent can post pictures of an expanding universe, that doesn't mean those pictures correspond to anything in reality. Basically, here is my argument:P1: If time doesn't exist, the universe is not expanding (expansion requires time for it to happen)P2: Time doesn't existC: Therefore, the universe is not expandingWhat my opponent fails to realize is that our observation of an expanding universe is contingent upon our experience of time. Therefore, if our experience of time is misconceived and an illusion, then the very reason we have to believe in an expanding universe is misconceived. Dark MatterWell, even if we assume the universe is expanding, what my opponent doesn't understand is that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are ad hoc hypotheses. Meaning, that they were made up to get around certain mathematical problems dealing with the gravitational forces between galaxies. There is literally 0 evidence for Dark Matter or Dark Energy. In fact, there are models of the universe in which the Dark Energy and Dark Matter don't exist, which are completely consistent with all observation. "Assuming that observers located inside the Universe measure a time flow which is different from the time appearing in the Friedmann-Lemaitre equation, and determining this time flow such that the Universe always appears flat to these observers, we derive a simple cosmological model which allows to explain the velocity dispersions of galaxies in galaxy clusters without introducing dark matter. It also solves the horizon problem without recourse to inflation. Moreover, it explains the present acceleration of the expansion without any resort to dark energy and provides a good fit to the observations of distant supernovae. Depending on the present value of the matter-energy density, we calculate an age of the Universe between 15.4 and 16.5 billion years, significantly larger than the 13.7 billion years of the standard Lambda-CDM model. Our model has a slower expansion rate in the early epochs, thus leaving more time for the formation of structures such as stars and galaxies." - Pierre Magain [1]Of course, that model assumes time exists, which is flawed, but the point is that even if we do assume that time exists, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not a given. Even If Time Exists, It Is Still The Case That Nothing HappensEven if we assume my argument based on the Toy Universe experiment is flawed, and that time exists, it is still the case that nothing happens. Why? Because static time theory is true. In static time theory (B-Theory), nothing happens as there is no flow of time, but time still exists with regards to tenseless relations. With regards to static time, nothing happens by definition (everything is static and tenseless). Static time theory necessary follows if time is extended as the same way as space is. As Philosopher William Lane Craig points out:"Minkowski’s interpretation is tenseless just because it is described in terms of a 4-dimensional geometrical object called spacetime. All points in spacetime exist. Things are extended in time just as they are in space. Hence, there is no temporal becoming." - William Lane Craig [2]So, if there is a four-dimensional object called "space-time", then there is no temporal becoming (or flow of time). This is because time would be extended just like space. Nothing would "happen" in this scenario, things would just exist tenselessly. Is this view the correct view? Yes. NASA confirmed in 2011 that the four-dimensional object known as space-time exists [3]. This is because Einstein's spacetime vortex was discovered. Here is a diagram (see? I can post pictures too): So, if we assume time exists, time is woven into space. This means that time is extended just like space, but there is not temporal becoming with regards to space. Therefore, tenseless/ static time theory is correct, and nothing happens with regards to the universe even if we assume time exists.ConclusionThe idea of things happening, or events occurring, is 100% predicated on the ontological existence of temporal becoming. The burden of proof in this debate is shared, and Pro hasn't provided a single shred of evidence that time is real and isn't an illusion. I have provided multiple experiments showing that the idea of temporal becoming is misconceived, and that nothing actually happens with regards to the universe. Therefore, The Big Bang did not happen. The resolution has been established. Sources[1] http://arxiv.org...[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[3] http://science.nasa.gov...