The universe needs a creator, therefore God exists - part 2

Indeed, I stated that I would explain how I disagree with the premises, but, as I wrote in a comment in both our debates, I did not have enough time to do so. I will do that later, for personal reasons. I did claim that "No scientist ever claimed that the universe had a finite beginning based on evidence or observation". My opponent presented two quotes of the scientists Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin. Hawking states that "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them." But that does not imply that all begun with the big bang. As far as I am aware, it is yet unknown to us whether and what was there before the big bang. But I request I am to elaborate more on the two essays in my third round, as I begun with studying Vilenkin's thesis and I am not yet finished with examining it. My opponent proposes the idea of the ether. If by any chance they have in mind the luminiferous ether, it must be noted that the latter's hypothesis has already been disproved by the Michelson and Morley experiment, which was yet another experiment in favour of relativity. [1]. But in case that the two are not related, I will continue with the concept that by "ether" we shall refer to, as Pro puts it in words, an underlying absolute time that is currently undetectable. Lorentz, according to my opponent's arguments, justifies their position by saying that there is a possibility that our measurement instruments' discoveries do not reflect absolute reality. If that's indeed the case, the conversation is pointless, as it may as well result in philosophical questions ranging from "do our instrumental observations reflect reality?" to the infamous "is your red the same as my red?". These are obviously queries that science yet cannot answer, as instrumental observation and observation in general are the ones examined here and therefore cannot be used as implements for us. Of course, in order to progress, we have to start from somewhere, and so we have (reluctantly) accepted that our reds are all the same. But why should we accept that our instrumental observations reflect reality? Simply because there is no reason that it is not so. Lorentz assuming that so that it fits his philosophy is just like, quoting Frank Wilczek on the string theory, throwing darts on the wall and then painting a target around them. Of course I cannot prove that I am correct, but, as Pro made sure to show before closing their arguments, this is a case of probability. My opponent addressed the train thought experiment as a "problem" of relativity. But. on the contrary, this very experiment is the one that lead Einstein to his conclusion of time dilation and space contraction. If it is conducted by taking the rules relativity postulates into account, there will be no "problem". Or rather, it is more accurate to say that the experiment can be used as an explanation of special relativity. As for the twin/clock paradoxes, to which my opponent may later refer, I will cite an explanation here: [2] Pro used the existence of the CMBR and the quantum realm as a potential ether. That may be so, but ascribing the CMBR the ether property of an absolute time that Lorentz proposed is going too far. I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that. Pro also states that the Lorentzian model is more consistent with observation, despite the fact that it ignores the time dilation and space contraction relativity proposes, using the, I would go as far as to use the term, excuse that instrumental observation does not accurately reflect reality. Furthermore, the whole point of this debate is practically whether time is an illusion or not, and therefore my point can not simply be bypassed by saying that empirical evidence does not agree with it. Pro claims that if the universe exists out of the illusion of time the past and future should be accessible. I have clarified that, since we live inside the mentioned universe, we cannot escape its properties' influences while still being inside it. At least, that is the way I perceive it. What I tried to point out with my book analogy is that, even though there is a fixed past and future, the characters are neither aware of it nor do can they access it and alter their decisions. The same goes for the total of the universe, the book, and us, the characters. I do not misunderstand that everything that happens within the universe has a cause, and I agree with it. But time being a fixed quantity is not necessary for that to be true, as all which we know has happened within the universe, and time is a property of the universe itself. But if we could observe from the "outside", it could be said that all within would be as visible as the contents of a shelf laid down in a table (metaphorically, of course). Right now, the argument, I have in favour of my thesis is that of relativity, on which I elaborated while replying to my opponent. Thank you. Sources: [1] Michelson - Morley https://www.aps.org... [2] Twin and clock paradox https://www.scientificamerican.com...