Nothing has never been absolutely so

"Before I begin I would like to point out that the only time I used "he" was when I was quoting Con and Con was refering to me" Oops! I apologize. Must have been reading in a rush. "The need for an uncaused event doesn't automatically mean one exists. Also, human reasoning(logic) does not dictate universal truth." While it is true that human logic or reasoning does not dictate truth, it is also true that it is our best method of gaining knowledge. If my opponent wishes to throw out logic as a guide then there is no reason that we cannot both win this debate. Indeed, there is no reason that losing cannot be winning... "The causal chain and the amount of time passing effecting us being here is negligible. And the causal chain and amount of time could be in fact an infinite loop of epic proportions. Either way time doesn't dictate change. If raw hamburger meet is sat on a counter it will not cook in an 30 minutes. Now if you fry that meat for 30 minutes then it will cook. The heat affects the entity not time." I don't think my opponent has understood my argument. Let me try again. My reasoning does not depend on whether or not any perceptible change is taking place. It is based on causality, whereby every even has a cause. My opponent has claimed that if nothing was absolute then there would be nothing to cause something to exist, and thus something would not be here. However, if, as he claims, every event has a cause, then the causal chain must stretch back to infinity. That means that an infinite number of events, or an unlimited number of events, would have to occur for the current time to exist. Obviously, it is impossible for an unlimited number of events to pass... since this number is by definition without limits. Therefore unless there was a first cause, before which there was nothing, we would not be here. I maintain that my syllogism is correct and that my opponent has endorsed a contradiction. "If you claim that an event can oringinate from absolutely nothing and present no real evidence that it exists is a leap of faith. It all boils down to if it's an event without a cause or an event with an unknown cause. I'm advocating the latter." Unfortunately, you are advocating a contradiction, since you have not refuted my syllogism. Certainly, it is extremely unlikely and strange that a completely uncaused event would occur; however, it is not contradictory. That we can only be here if we cannot be here is, an contradictions are not just unlikely, they are impossible.I am not making any positive claims about what actually occurred. I am simply pointing out flaws in your argument. "Even if what you propose(an uncaused event) is true does not refute the resolution. It would only prove that at one point there was nothing somewhere; not that is was absolute." I maintain that the absence you speak of (the absence of even absence itself) cannot be anything but absolute. Nothing, no thing whatsoever, cannot be limited by things. For what does it mean to be nothing in the midst of something, if not the void of space, which you have already argued is not applicable to the nothing of the resolution? In summary, my opponent has failed to resolve the contradiction in his argument and thus has failed to make his case. Thanks for reading!