The universe must have had a definite starting point in time.

In round 2 I was hoping my opponent would provide some evidence that proves his pro position on this topic. He's not provided any contrary evidence which is the burden of the instigator. In providing the con argument to his position I have reiterated scientific fact that time is relative to velocity, matter and space. Here are my rebuttals once again: 1) "First and foremost, my opponent identifies space, matter, velocity, and time to be four separate dimensions. However, if you were to search the Wiki universe page for "dimension," in all of the fifteen matches, you would only see the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Space comprises of the first three dimensions. Matter is what takes up space. Velocity is a formula relating space and time. Time is the fourth dimension. " >>>I fail to see what the point is here. It appears that my opponent does agree that there are four dimensions with one of them being time. I agree, time is the forth dimension and is related to the first three. I'd like to thank my opponent for confirming my point. 2)"Since these dimensions are all interrelated, Albert Einstein concluded that as objects approach the speed of light (the speed limit of the universe aside from theoretical particles and the big bang) mass becomes infinite and TIME STOPS (emphasis added€ï¿½E=MC2). " >>>My opponent contradicts himself here. In his opening argument he provides the basis for the debate and that basis (included in the link) states that the Universe was created with cosmic inflation measured as 10-32. This was the premise for the debate (which he started) and clearly shows that cosmic inflation exceeds the speed of light. If my opponent is going to start the debate with the basic premise he ought to stick with that fact through the debate. Instead, he states "it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light". His contradiction to his own source document illustrates that he's unable to accept this basic fact. To add to his contradiction, my opponent states that "I'd like to point out that my opponent only gives one source to this astounding claim, which is a Wikipedia page about the universe. " If he is implying that Wikipedia is a substandard source I'd like to highlight that this is the exact site he used to springboard this debate. 3) "The conclusion was that as an ordinary object comes closer and closer to the speed of light, time SLOWS DOWN, and it takes more and more energy to go faster. He concluded that it would take an infinite amount of energy for matter to travel at the speed of light. The thing is, we don't have infinite energy. It's kind of like an asymptote, as seen in the Time Dilation graph in the link above. " >>>My opponent's source for this conclusion was this guy. .. . http://startswithabang.com.... My source for my point was this guy (Stephen Hawking) . http://www.generationterrorists.com... who stated "what happens to the velocity of light when time stops in a black hole"? In the interest of credibility, I'll go with Stephen Hawking. 4) "If time stops, no natural event could possibly make time start up again. " >>>To my first point in this last round, my opponent hasn't proven any point with hard facts but rather theory. Where's the proof to the above statement? Time starts with objects dip below the speed of light. 5) "How can a time frame be faster than a speed? What if matter hardly moved at all during that brief time frame? Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the speed of light may be slowing down (. http://www.khouse.org......), in which case, pretty much any hypothetical speed at the time of the Big Bang may have been slower than the speed of light at the time. This, combined with the fact that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, proves that the Big Bang could not have traveled faster than the speed of light. " >>>See points to #3 above. My opponent is now proposing we use a different source document than the one agreed to in Round #1 centered on the proven scientific theories of general and special relativity. This is similar to his notion of time travel in Round 2, not pertinent to the discussion or based on the theories presented as the basis for this debate in Round #1. He's even gone so far as to again contradict the cosmic inflation theory proposed in his first position (see his first link. .. The universe - . http://en.wikipedia.org......). I went so far as to agree with his initial conclusion from Round #1 on this point and he essentially refuted his own point when he says disagrees with this point. .. ""Since time is nonexistent at speeds greater than the speed of light, and the big bang (cosmic inflation) happened at speeds greater than the speed of light, than the big bang must have occurred in the absence of time. " 7)"As for the GPS example that only shows that time slows down with increased speed. It does not show that matter can reach the speed of light, which is what my opponent needs to win this debate. " >>>The burden of proof is on "Pro" to support his point. My burden is to illustrate why his proof is erroneous. I've proven, using scientific principles accepted by most scientists and astrophysicists, that time is not linear but contingent on velocity, space and matter. He's not only reconfirmed this point in this final round but failed to introduce any new evidence to support his position (links to other unknown individuals with their own opinions is not proof). 8)""These facts provide clear support that the universe started in the absence of time (because there isn't a distinction between space AND time) and as such, it's not possible that the universe had a definite starting point in time. " Actually, even if there was no time before the universe, as long as the universe started with time, then the definite starting point in time would indeed be the Big Bang. The universe started to end the absence of time. " >>>My opponent misquoted me here. I never stated that the universe started with time. Instead, my point was that the Universe started with the absence of time because time is limited by the speed of light and, through his own source, cosmic inflation occurred at speeds in excess of the speed of light. Read round #2 for clarification on this point. 9)"Based on these proven concepts, I ask that you vote against the absurd notion that my opponent believes is accurate. " This statement actually mirrors my own thoughts. Which is more absurd, the idea that time had a definite starting point due to a very logical explanation (see the time machine question), or the idea that an object can go faster than the speed of light thanks to its greater-than-infinite energy? >>>What is absurd is that my opponent continues to believe that space and time are mutually exclusive when the theories of the debate clearly contradict this notion. It's not "space and time" but rather space-time. In conclusion, I'd like to thank my opponent for attempting to refute generally accepted scientific notions using time as a measurement vs. an embedded principle of space itself. As always, I appreciate the discussion and the time the readers put into considering these points. Vote based on science vs. rhetoric.