There probably exists a necessary, external cause to the universe

Before I begin this final round I would like to return to Pro's round 1 ground rules/definitions. Pro "BOP will be on me. " Pro is the instigator and has accepted the burden of proving his proposition. I commend Pro for setting a high bar and taking such a strong position. Proof is a tough thing to meet, and I don't feel as though Pro has meet this bar, for the previous reasons and the following reasons. Pro's objections to the Analogy Fallacy. The argument I made was that analogies are different than the thing they are being compared to. It is this difference that prevents things being proved off of an analogy. In Pro's rebuttal to this objection I've raised Pro doesn't refute this point. He goes back to discussing axioms of math, logical truths and a few other small points. He never makes a case as to why the math analogy is so similar to the universe that the conclusion he draws from the analogy applies to the universe. Analogies by their very nature are different from the thing they are being compared to, this is why they are analogies. Analogies cannot be used as proofs because they require a difference between the subjects being compared. Pro hasn't proved his case because of this simple fact regarding analogies. Pro hasn't proved his case because he hasn't established a strong (any) link between his math analogy conclusion and the properties of the universe. Pro's objection to the Knowledge Fallacy. I would like to commend Pro for acknowledging this is a valid point made by Con. Pro speaking, "In terms of knowledge, it seems that well that may be so. Especially considering that the argument just is an argument. .. ." The thing about this debate is that Pro stated "BOP is on me. " I claimed that Pro cannot establish a probability (meaning more likely than not) off of an unknowable. Pro never refutes this point. So the objection remains and Pro is in general agreement, effectively acknowledging he hasn't proved his proposition. Pro raises a few other points in this section, multiverse and a claim on what my position really is. My position is that Pro cannot prove his position. Yes, I'm Con to the proposition. But Pro accepts BOP in round 1, which is before I accept the debate. My position is that Pro cannot prove the proposition, he hasn't. The multiverse, this isn't even a scientific hypothesis at the moment. There is a significant amount of discussion of whether it even qualifies as science in scientific circles. In the NOVA series, "The Fabric of the Cosmos" several physicists are questioned about their thoughts on the multiverse idea. One's response was, "is it science, philosophy or religion? " Several dismissed the topic because it is beyond our ability to test the idea scientifically. The point is, the multiverse is an idea that hasn't been proved and this minor objection to the multiverse idea doesn't help Pro prove his case. Pro's objection to Con's logical objection. Pro speaking, "Con argues that because whatever caused the universe (nice assumption) must be actual, it cannot be external. " No this isn't what I argued. Back to round 1, Pro defines the universe as everything that is or every was. This is simple logic here. If the universe is everything that is or ever was, then logically there is nothing external to the universe (the universe contains everything). If there is no external (because the universe contains everything) then there can be no external cause. This is simple logic. When Pro defined the universe as everything that is or every was, Pro defined away his external to the universe and his cause to it. In chess we would call this a blunder. A move that has cost you a piece because you simply missed seeing something obvious. If Pro believes the universe is everything, he did define it that way, then there cannot be an external or an external cause. This point remains unrefuted. Conclusion. Pro is the instigator in this debate. Pro, "BOP is on me. " Pro must prove the proposition to be correct. Pro hasn't proved this in the debate for three reasons. Reason 1, the Analogy Fallacy hasn't been refuted by Pro. Reason 2, the Knowledge Fallacy, Pro does concede this point. A probability cannot be proved off a unknowable. And the clear logical problem with defining the universe as everything then claiming something outside of it. Needless to say Pro didn't refute this since it is unrefutable. The BOP hasn't been meet.