I will PROVE that a finite past of the universe doesn't equate to it coming into being

IntroductionI consider it an extraordinary claim, perhaps it is debatable, but debating that does not prove his assertion, which is what this debate is supposed to be about. His enthusiasm for believing he can “prove” God doesn’t exist is noted, but that also has nothing to do with this debate. I suspect it is confirmation bias regarding his religious beliefs that make him think philosophers don’t understand philosophy as well as random bloggers, that’s fine; but we aren’t debating RT’s religious beliefs here either. I will instead address the philosophical issues he has raised that relate to the actual debate we are trying to have here. I have and will continue to show how he takes a principle of logic and presents its opposite result in most instances. A good example is in the introduction where he has claimed that a single dissenting philosophical opinion refutes my use of the word “unresolved”, but it is obvious that the existence of dissenting opinions implies an issue is “unresolved”, if all philosophers agreed on an issue, it would be “resolved”. Such misrepresentation of contrary conclusions characterizes his approach to this debate. B-Theory I haven’t conceded anything; I’m just tired of hearing RT blather about the B Theory when it doesn’t apply and it doesn’t make his point. The B Theory defines time in a way that may suit his agenda of declaring proof without an argument, but the definition simply eliminates the defining features of time. A definition that denies change, says time does not flow, says events are not even sequential but rather that all moments exist concurrently, and relegates the most defining characteristics of time to mere illusion is defining something other than time. In the B Theory, conclusions don’t follow from premises, conclusions aren’t true, they just exist independent of premises; invoking the B Theory cannot possibly constitute a logical argument that proves his assertion. A-Theory (Prelude) I can’t have conceded his point because what he presented was pointless; so I didn’t need to respond. My opponent needs to understand that he can’t just repeat a false claim until it becomes a true claim; that is not how logic works. A-Theory RT accepted the burden of proof and took the challenge to provide a logical argument that proves his extraordinary claim; he then simply asserts that it is self-evident. The only argument he presents is that he doesn’t need to present an argument, his assertion “just is”. He thinks he can win the debate by denying the challenge and voiding the debate and I can’t imagine a single voter will accept his idea that unaccepting the challenge and refusing the terms of the debate constitutes a “win”. His so called argument simply declares the assertion to be self-evident, as if it is some kind of magical incantation that automatically “proves” whatever you apply it to. He provides the definition of “self-evident as if this proves his claim and yes, its definition is “evident in itself without proof or demonstration; axiomatic” but that only applies if the assertion is actually self-evident, and it isn’t. I could just as easily refute his argument by making an opposite claim and declaring that to be self-evident, but that would also be pointless. He must demonstrate why it is self-evident to make that claim, and he hasn’t. He then challenges the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) by invoking quantum physics without understanding either quantum physics or the PSR. There is a difference between predictability and causality, on the quantum level the connection between cause and effect is not entirely severed, it only undermines deterministic predictability. Quantum uncertainty does provide causal statistically probabilities related to what we know about antecedent states, and consequently, a probabilistic argument for a cause of the Big Bang is possible. Therefore it does not follow that quantum uncertainty proves that a necessary cause cannot exist as RT claims. Modal logic supports the opposite to be true, that if it is possible that it is necessary that a cause of some sort exists, then it is necessary that a cause of that sort exists, which “proves” my assertion, not his. RT asks us to consider a “first” state of the universe 13.7 billion y nears ago, it logically follows that temporally prior to that first state nothing exists and the Universe necessarily came into being. To follow time back to a point 13.7 billion years ago one must traverse a series of sequential moments back in time, each moment in the journey has both a before and after moment, as is the case with sequential numbers. It is not logical to simply say that the sequence could just stop for no reason. as if you could logically prove that the set of whole numbers is finite by simply saying “if it is at least possible” that you could come to a number that you can’t add one to, then you have proven that whole numbers are finite. His own attempt at an argument actually refutes his extraordinary claim that he has proven that the universe did not necessarily come into being. He claims that the PSR is satisfied by stating that the “reason” for the first state of the universe is that there is “no reason”, it just is, which of course, is not a reason. Again he is presenting a logical opposite as fact, just as “unresolved” isn’t “resolved”; “no reason” isn’t a “reason”. RT argues that a finite universe has no space-time boundaries and hence lacks a beginning, but it is certainly possible that time might be either multi-dimensional or epistemically imaginary (“unreal” in B Theory), which is in fact what the “best science” he invokes argues. This clearly indicates that his contention that he can prove that the universe did not necessarily come into being is patently false. RT seems to think modal logic entails “semantic possibility”, that it must be true if it is at least possible to say it. Using the same “logic” and “argument” RT uses to “prove” his claim; one could also “prove” that the set of whole numbers is actually finite, simply because his special kind of “modal logic” allows me to say it. That argument goes like this: The A Theory of Numbers If you could come to a number which you cannot add one to, then whole numbers are finite. Based on Modal intuition, it is self-evident that nothing makes a number to which you cannot add one metaphysically or logically impossible. If nothing makes it metaphysically or logically possible, it ispossible by definition. P1: If it is possible that there is a number to which you cannot add one, then whole numbers are finite.P2: It is possible that there is a number to which you cannot add one.C: Whole numbers are finite. The above argument follows Modus Ponens perfectly, so claims of invalid argumentation are false. The PSR is satisfied by saying that the reason you can’t add one to that number is that there is no reason, “it just is”. So there you go. The B Theory of Numbers The B Theory of numbers is a theory that defines numbers as non-sequential, all numbers exist equally and the number that A Theorists think follows the largest existing number just doesn’t exist. The sequential nature of numbers is an illusion as is the presumed ability to add one to the largest existing number. Under the B Theory of numbers, I have proven conclusively that whole numbers are finite. So there you go. As you can see, RT’s same approach to proving his extraordinary claim can be used to prove anything. It isn’t logic at all; it is a matter of thumbing your nose at logic. Conclusion RT has not proven anything here; he has made a mockery of philosophy, logic, arguments, proof, and reason itself. The only thing he has proven is that he doesn’t understand logic and doesn’t know what constitutes a proof. He accepted the burden of proof for his extraordinary claim and has failed to offer a logical argument that constitutes proof.