The Universe has always existed

Well I'm not quite sure how to respond to my peer's last round as he really didnt refute any of the evidence I've brought forth. He just said its wrong without explaining how/why..." As Descartes points out, our senses make mistakes often. That since all scientific observation is supposedly based of sense information; we never get absolute certainty, nor are most physical theories meant to be at all, quantum mechanics being one of the must uncertain theories of them all. That is, because of its statistical nature it can't by definition give certainty of anything"Yet by his own standards:1) Logic is based off of the senses- "That we don't create logic but rather symbolize (create a language) which reflects relations of reality and this is the same with math. It rather discovering, than creating and that makes it objective." Look at that, REFLECTS RELATIONS OF REALITY. To reflect is a synonym of to observe. Relations is a synonym of interactions. Reality, now this is a sticky part, because he holds that the mind is immaterial. Yet what we observe is limited to what we physically sense. We no more observe time, then we do the mind. It is through the observation of interactions between physical objects that we justify the existence of time. Can the same thing be said about the "immaterial mind"? No.2) Math is on the same level as logic: "this is the same with math" Now note the complete contradiction between that statement in regards to logic and math and their objective qualities and how they are the same types of processes(ones which we symbolize not create.)"That is, because of its statistical nature it can't by definition give certainty of anything"(In regards to science) So he originally states that math is the same as logic. Then proposes that:A: Science cannot be trusted because1) It is based on our senses and our senses can fool us. Now I will briefly pause and say. Do you not think scientists know this? Do you think they dont have ways to erase almost all doubt that our senses are indeed fooling us? Its called testing the hypothesis, a vital part of the scientific method. Its not enough to just test it once, the hypothesis gets tested multiple times, and then it gets reformulated based on the results. Then, just to be sure, it gets tested some more. Now its easy to say, "well that one test couldve been our senses fooling us." But after 5 tests? After 10? After 15? 20? 50? tests. And each time those results come back the same, how much of a chance is there that it was just a "trick of the senses?" Anyways continuing on2) Statistical in natureB: Logic is:1) It is based on our senses(reflections of relations of reality)2) Not statistical in natureC: Logic is superior to science(So logic takes priority in the sense that if are findings are not logical its mean our scientific theory is flawed))Now I cant be the only one seeing that contradiction, its so obvious. Now i'll lay out a case for why Science is superior to logic using what has been said by both myself and my peer.A: Logic cannot be trusted because:1) Based on our senses2) Not Statistical(Mathematical) in nature(if science is statistical in nature and that is the difference between logic and science. From what my peer has said thats the only difference I can surmise that he seeks to claim logic is superior, because by his own admission logic is based on our senses)3) If logic is solely based on our senses it cannot be objective as our senses are fallibleB: Science is superior to Logic because:1) Based on our senses 2) Statistically based(objective)3) Science uses more then just senses to base conclusions4) Science can be objective(statistically based) but is not always(sense-based as well)C: Science is superior to logic as it factors in more than just our senses.(More information=better understanding) As well as being partially objective(due to incorporation of mathematics)Anyways, continuing on to the matter of mind body-dualism. If mind body dualism were true then why have we been able to map out the brain into areas that control certain thought processes?[1] Also, if the mind is immaterial, and independent of our physical bodies, explain:1) Causal Interaction- If consciousness (the mind) can exist independently of physical reality (the brain), one must explain how physical memories are created concerning consciousness. Dualism must therefore explain how consciousness affects physical reality.2) Effects of Brain-Damage- The point is that, in instances of some sort of brain damage (e.g. caused by automobile accidents, drug abuse, pathological diseases, etc.), it is always the case that the mental substance and/or properties of the person are significantly changed or compromised. If the mind were a completely separate substance from the brain, how could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured?3) Simplicity- why anyone should find it necessary to believe in the existence of two, ontologically distinct, entities (mind and brain), when it seems possible and would make for a simpler thesis to test against scientific evidence, to explain the same events and properties in terms of one. It is a heuristic principle in science and philosophy not to assume the existence of more entities than is necessary for clear explanation and prediction(Occams Razor mean anything?)All these point to mind-body dualism being false. The Second is the biggest one as it accounts for the discovery of information through science. Discoveries made long after Descartes was alive, discoveries that would have left him, and leave dualists today, confounded."As with most arguments of this kind there is certain point where people get desperate and their integrity starts to flail. With that there becomes a shift in the argument style usually in the sense that it becomes darker. That is, more insulting, more deceitful, they may copy their opponents and become more fallacious. This is always something to look out for in these types of debates."This is purely an ad hominem attack with no basis as to why the assertion that I am being deceitful, or fallacious. As such it cannot be held to be true."While the Fooler aka The Sophist, misconstrues their opponent's positions by any means necessary for the sake of appearing to make sense rather than a clear and open demonstration of justification. Such morals are unknown to the Sophist.Note: He is not copying me in the same way, because he is actually writing in arguments that I don't hold." 1) Ad Hominem- I have no morals2) Claim of straw-man that has no basis as no reason to why/how it was true was given. Ultimately it must be held to be false"Evil Sophist: based of my awesome physicalism argument consciousness must be proven to know the universe exist.Rene Descartes: !!!!!???1) Good job straw-manning me right after accusing me of doing the same thing. I never said prove consciousness exists, I said to prove it is immaterial and not merely physical(the brain). Talk about hypocrisy!"Principle of sufficient reason is not even the one he needs to pick on" I disagree as one of your key points was, "Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (Law of conservation, and by logic)" You proved that false yourself, I further explained with The Hawking Card."Olbers Paradox blew, it's not any stronger because he says it again. He just deleted the CAN. But an argument based on science can't follow by necessity." As i previously showed, science is superior to logic. Also Olbers paradox and the Heath Death Paradox play into each other.1) Heat Death shows that the universe cant be infinite in age. If it is not infinite in age, it cant be infinite in extent(a finite cant lead to an infinite)2) Olbers shows that if it is infinite in age(ALWAYS), size is infinite(constant expansion). The night cantbe dark(inifinite stars)----1) http://www.umich.edu...