An teleological and ontological question

Thanks for your response. I look forward to the debate. "PREMISE 1 IS SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS. IT MAY BE TRUE THAT WHEN MOVING THROUGH TIME, THE NEXT MOMENT WILL ALWAYS BE BASED OFF SOMETHING EARLIER, SOMETHING THAT HAS CAUSED IT." There is no ambiguity, or at least there shouldn't be. Allow me to explain why. Everything that exists only exists because of a specific cause. And of that cause, it is outside of itself. What do I mean? Anything that exists in the material universe has to attribute its existence to something outside of itself. For instance, you did not simply spontaneously generate without cause. Your parents had sex, spermatozoa and ovum united, you incubated for nine months, and out you came. I naturally defy you to prove that anything in the known universe can exist outside of a cause. "WHAT ABOUT BEFORE TIME EXISTED" A nominal familiarity with physics will demonstrate that time, matter, and space are intimately connected; and not just intimately connected, but homologous. If time does not exist, then space cannot exist either. If there is no space, then there is no material object to exist within, because all material takes up space. Where (space) does it exist? When (time) does it exist? You obviously can't have one without the other. This is why the inflationary big bang model was an important theorem. Hubble demonstrated that time, space, and matter could be traced back to a singularity. The universe in which we live had a beginning, and all observable data testifies to that. "2.11 SAYS THAT AN ACTUAL INFINITE CANNOT EXIST. THIS IS SPECULATION." Its not speculation on my part if an actual infinite has never been demonstrated, and indeed can't. In fact, all the speculation to the contrary is stemming from you. Since I cannot give evidence of a negative in positive way, meaning: if something does not exist, then I cannot prove the non-existence of something, then you taking the positive position in affirming that it is speculation, the burden of proof therefore lies with you to demonstrate it. "IF AN ACTUAL INFINITE OR AN INFINITE REGRESS OF EVENTS COULD EXIST, THAN AN ACTUAL INFINITE COULD COME ABOUT THROUGH ADDITION." No, it cannot and this is why: Its a simple deduction. If you can add or subtract to anything, then it isn't an actual infinite. You can't have infinity + 1 or 2 or 3, right? And because you and I were born, there is not an infinite amount of people. It's important to distinguish between an actual infinite from a potential infinite. An actual infinite is a collection of things having a proper subset which has the same number of members as the original collection itself. In contrast, an actual infinite is not like a potential infinite, which is a collection of every point in time finite, but is growing toward infinity as a limit. In other words, a potential infinite can exist, but an actual infinite as it applies to time/space/matter/energy does not exist. "KEEP IN MIND THAT EVEN REMOVING ONE PREMISE FROM THE ARGUMENT WOULD INVALIDATE THE ARGUMENT" I suppose that it would invalidate it supposing that any of your objections were proven to be true. Alas, they weren't, as I have demonstrated. You have neglected to refute any of the arguments. You've simply raised ambiguous objections without demonstration and without introducing wild speculation. I have demonstrated through the laws of physics and mathematics that your objections are false. I want to thank CON again for accepting the debate. The debate looks very promising.