Convince Me

Most people would not accept this because I can just claim "I am not convinced" and win even with flimsy reasoning according to the debate outline. Fortunately, I am not that petty. Unfortunately, I am not convinced. On the bright side however, I have many good reasons for why I am not convinced which I am going to present in this round. The Concept and Evidence of Infinity"One thing we know, is that Infinity is a reality, but it is outside of our universe. "The fact that you said we know that infinity is a reality sets off red flags, because I do not know that infinity is a reality. This is going to have to have support for me to believe it. "It is not hard to prove that there is an infinity. For without an infinity, how would our world come to be? " A question is not an argument. Therefore, this is not a convincing argument by definition. "In the Big Bang theory, and/or every other atheistic theory of how our world came to be, there is a problem of linear time. " I am not convinced there is a problem of linear time. The B-Theory of time posits no linear time and it is Atheist-friendly. It would only be a problem if B-Theory was impossible. It would only seem to be impossible to me if an actual infinite was impossible (which is exactly what you are arguing against). "It is the truth that there was a beginning, and there will be an end. " Modern science tells us that the universe will keep on expanding forever. The idea that the universe will end in a Big Crunch or some other scenario is unlikely according to modern science. This means I am not convinced by the above. "We know that we operate within a linear time because we have a concept of time" This is assumes that time has to be how we experience it even though relativity indicates different. I do not see how that follows from you; so I am not really convinced. "Without an external source, there was a point when there was nothing. No universe. Nothing. And then. .. poof! There was something, without any cause. "The statement "there was a point when there was nothing" is logically contradictory. To say there "was" and "when" necessitates time, which is something. A point is something as well. Thus to say there "was" "a point" "when" there "was" "nothing" makes no sense at all and is not a sentance that be viewed as coherent. In reality, there was a point but it was not nothing; it was the initial state of the universe which was somethnig. Therefore, I am not convinced. "If there isn't an external cause, then there wouldn't be a universe at all, because there would need to be a cause. "This seems like circular reasoning. I am not convinced by circular reasoning. Regardless, my opponent has not shown what he means by the term "God is infinite". Does this mean:(i) His mind entails an infinite regress of causally prior thoughts whether temporally or atemporally? (ii) His mind entails that an infinite amount of thoughts exist timelessly? (iii) His mind entails that a finite amount of thoughts exists timelessly? (iiii) His mind entails one super-thought exists timelessly? Pro has left us without a meaning behind his view of an infninte God. The Evidence of an Infinite GodThis section is based on the assumption that his first section was convincing. It was not. Therefore the conclusions drawn off it here are not convincing by default. ConclusionI am honestly and truly not convinced by my opponent's arguments. I provded reasons for why I am not convinced by Pro's case. Pro still has two more chances to convince me before the end of the debate.